Totems: Friends, Enemies and Allies

[Dubanka]

I state earlier (http://www.xsyon.com/forum/showthread.php/6676-Tribal-area-expansion) that I would like to see tribes gain the ability to influence their tribal area by ranking their totems. I like this because it gives motivation for tribal members to do 'stuff' on a regular basis to support, or expand, their tribe.

To go along with this, I would like to see the totem menu expanded to include non-tribe member status and permission. It would appear that the code for this is already mostly there...as inter tribe permissions can be set based upon tribal rank. Would it be a huge step to extend these permissions to non-tribal members?

/tally [tribe] designates [tribe] as an ally
/friend [individual] designates individual as a friend of the tribe.

the 'diplomacy' tab would look much like the tribe management section, you could extend permissions to varying degrees for friends and alllied tribes. Access storage? sure. Harvest resouces? sure. Terraform? No way. etc. etc.

of course you'd also have
/tenemy which would designate an enemy tribe. this would currently be kinda pointless, since we don't have npc guards or anything...but ideally at some point we would (tamed wolves?) and this would allow us to kos hostiles.

On my personal wishlist, would be in the ally menu, the ability to allow an ally to build on your land...and then a subset of what they'd be permitted to build. WHy? because then i could contract out for someone to build my walls :) WTB Craft guild to fortify VD homestead. Food, protection and shelter guaranteed! In the same manner, a pve tribe could hire a merc tribe for protection.

anyway. thoughts.

[MrDDT]

I would like to see some type of in game cost/sink for allowing tribes to be allies. Thus people wouldnt just allies with everyone in the world.

Good system and idea though.

[Dubanka]

good point. i'm not sure how that would work tho. actually i'm not sure that i care. if someone allies up with the whole world, that's actually pretty risky, from a diplomatic standpoint...ally with me, and then i start launching raids into your neighbors backyard...kinda bad diplomatically. I guess i'm of the mind that the hand holders are going to hold hands whether or not there is a mechanic in game for them to do it...i'd just assume have the mechanic in game so all hand holding is on the up and up :)

[MrDDT]

good point. i'm not sure how that would work tho. actually i'm not sure that i care. if someone allies up with the whole world, that's actually pretty risky, from a diplomatic standpoint...ally with me, and then i start launching raids into your neighbors backyard...kinda bad diplomatically. I guess i'm of the mind that the hand holders are going to hold hands whether or not there is a mechanic in game for them to do it...i'd just assume have the mechanic in game so all hand holding is on the up and up :)

Well it was would also with the "We are allies for today, and not tomorrow" issue. Where people pop in and out of allies. Making some type of "Tribute" to become an ally using some type of resource that will be removed from the game. Also could allow some of this "tribute" to goto the leader tribe of the ally, or some to both tribes. Part of the agreement.
This would make it so there is just more than 1 reason to do all this stuff.

I hate systems like in Darkfall where people are able to jump in and out of being an ally. Or fake game ways that force you "3 days before you can join a tribe". Why not make it based on resources instead?

[Dubanka]

perhaps its the subordinate guild that is paying tribute to the alliance leader. one time fee? weekly cost? both? based on number of members of subordinate tribe? Personally i generally detest alliance systems in general...but it's good for gameplay...if only for forum warrioring, '...If you're gonna nutcup why don't you ally up already and make it official!...'

[Book]

I state earlier (http://www.xsyon.com/forum/showthread.php/6676-Tribal-area-expansion)

On my personal wishlist, would be in the ally menu, the ability to allow an ally to build on your land...and then a subset of what they'd be permitted to build. WHy? because then i could contract out for someone to build my walls :) WTB Craft guild to fortify VD homestead. Food, protection and shelter guaranteed! In the same manner, a pve tribe could hire a merc tribe for protection.


Over here :

http://www.xsyon.com/forum/showthread.php/6630-feature-to-allow-hiring-workers

[MrDDT]

perhaps its the subordinate guild that is paying tribute to the alliance leader. one time fee? weekly cost? both? based on number of members of subordinate tribe? Personally i generally detest alliance systems in general...but it's good for gameplay...if only for forum warrioring, '...If you're gonna nutcup why don't you ally up already and make it official!...'

Yep just like that, but also make allies have a reason to allies. Like you said, shared resources and other bonuses but make sure its balanced too, not to promote it too much.

[KeithStone]

I would like to see some type of in game cost/sink for allowing tribes to be allies. Thus people wouldnt just allies with everyone in the world.

Good system and idea though.

I don't like this at all- there's already going to be limitations on who you can ally with. For example, a good tribe would not be able to ally an evil tribe and vice versa. You can't jump back and forth between being good and evil without first disbanding your tribe so that will keep people from flip flopping allies or trying to ally the entire server for a day.

[orious13]

Good tribes are also not supposed to be able to kill/attack other good or neutrals (I think?) without severe penalties.

In a sense, everyone who is good is an ally already and everyone who is evil is...well a toss of the dice.

[Dubanka]

allignment shoudl get tossed out the window when it comes to this subject...you could have 2 good alligned tribes that hate each other.

while they don't kill each other in an rpk sense, the fact that they are of the same allignment should not preclude them from engaging in a fight for territory...otherwise would leave the system open to grief. EXAMPLE:
I hate tribe A. They are a 'Good' Alligned tribe.
I make tribe B as a good alligned tribe.
I cut down all of the timer surrounding tribe A and haul it back to my tribe. because i can.
I scavenge all the junk, and pave what i couldnt, around tribe A. because i can.
I can and there is nothing you can do without compromising your good status. HAHA.
I also make a point of capturing every rare resource that tribe A wants. further hampering them.
Tribe A should be pretty pissed at me and my folks.
Tribe A should be able to try to send me a message without it compromising their allignment.

and everyone should be able to ally with a neutral tribe...that's the whole point of them being neither good nor evil. A good tribe shouldnt be able to ally with an evil tribe...but really, whats the point. If i'm evil, and you're good, and you're fgighting one of my enemies, I May decide to come crash the party on your behalf. So really the whole discussion of who can ally with who doesnt matter, because player behavior will truump code every single time.

[Trenchfoot]

Yeah I really don't like the way the alignment system is sounding. Good/Neutral/Evil should be a personal POV that changes depending upon who you're talking to. Even the bad guy is the hero of his own story.

I think alignment should be something more like allowing the players to form alliances and then be identified with the morality of the alliance in the same way alignment seems to be intended. Opposing alliances will of course consider one another evil. There could be a way for tribes to set restrictions. ie. Check the box that says 'Reject alliances with foes.'. Then whoever your tribe marks as a foe either excludes any tribe from allying with you who also allies with them, or it break alliances to those who are currently allies and decide to ally with your foes.

There should be as many organizations of players as the players see fit to classify themselves. Rather than simply good/neutral/evil, which is a fraudulent system imo.

EDIT: In a good/neutral/evil system. Evil can't be too evil (you can call yourself evil but we're going to add a bunch of rules that requires you to behave), and good is only as good as they are restricted from being evil (which makes it the new neutral).

[MrDDT]

I don't like this at all- there's already going to be limitations on who you can ally with. For example, a good tribe would not be able to ally an evil tribe and vice versa. You can't jump back and forth between being good and evil without first disbanding your tribe so that will keep people from flip flopping allies or trying to ally the entire server for a day.

Sorta, but you can still have issues with allies flipfloping.
It helps both sides, allies will be able to work out with better allies and know that this ally isnt going to just use them.
Also helps with people exploiting it with tribe wars and other functions.

Good and Evil is a good also way to do it. I dont see why you wouldnt want both systems in it. You didnt state that in your post. Whats the reason why you dont want it again? Because the good vs evil thing isnt really effecting the taxing of allies.

[Delvie]

I think the alignment system needs to change to just being a gauge of personal actions. Have tribes alignment based on average of members alignment and have alliance alignment being an average of tribes alignment.

For alliance fee requirements have Tribes build embassies in each others land. Would also force Tribes to be selective as the embassies are going to eat up their land space. Alliance permissions could be based on embassy type/level. For example, each tribe creates a small flag pole in the other tribes land space. This is a level 1 embassy and unlocks alliance chat. Then they decide to upgrade to a small shed (the flag pole moving on top of it) which unlocks safe zone access permissions (the host tribe would still have control on actually granting safe zone). etc. This also provides a visual aspect to alliances when you are scouting out enemy tribes.

Now abandoning an embassy or kicking one out would become interesting. Do you allow the embassies to be like they are supposed to be in real world? Do you have embassy owners deposit something important as surety for behavior? Can an embassy be destroyed by anyone? Do embassies require maintenance? What happens if they aren't maintained? To exit an alliance do you have to destroy your embassies on all the other Tribes land? Or is it enough to destroy all the alliance embassies that are on your land?

[Trenchfoot]

Let the players decide who is good or evil. Let them develop their own sense of right and wrong, their own customs, their own culture. So that from place to place, tribe to tribe, the laws on whats acceptable and what isn't vary.

[MrDDT]

Let the players decide who is good or evil. Let them develop their own sense of right and wrong, their own customs, their own culture. So that from place to place, tribe to tribe, the laws on whats acceptable and what isn't vary.

Is this your first MMO?

[Trenchfoot]

Oh right because alignments are traditional. I forgot.

As long as alignments aren't/doesn't:

A. A safety mechanism for the good guys.
B. Make neutral the liars club.
C. Turn evil into props (players who pay to be the games mobs who can never really win).

Then I can probably live with it just like I always have.

[MrDDT]

Oh right because alignments are traditional. I forgot.

As long as alignments aren't/doesn't:

A. A safety mechanism for the good guys.
B. Make neutral the liars club.
C. Turn evil into props (players who pay to be the games mobs who can never really win).

Then I can probably live with it just like I always have.


I dont know why you say that "evil" players never win. Ive seen them win in many games. UO, Darkfall, Wurm Online, and Karos. Just to name some off the top of my head.
No idea what you are getting at.

My comment was about players policing their own, doesnt work. You need a system that punishes people for doing those things. Players have and likely never will be bothered to police good vs evil. It just doesnt work.

[Trenchfoot]

I dont know why you say that "evil" players never win. Ive seen them win in many games. UO, Darkfall, Wurm Online, and Karos. Just to name some off the top of my head.
No idea what you are getting at.

Yawn. Probably because I didn't say that.


My comment was about players policing their own, doesnt work. You need a system that punishes people for doing those things.

I know it was. And punishes who for doing what?


Players have and likely never will be bothered to police good vs evil. It just doesnt work.

Players have and always will police to the extent that mommy doesn't do it for them. They police their interests, because it's in their interest to do so. Of course no one polices good or evil, because it's a farce to begin with. The best is can be is arbitrary.

[MrDDT]

Yawn. Probably because I didn't say that.
I know it was. And punishes who for doing what?
Players have and always will police to the extent that mommy doesn't do it for them. They police their interests, because it's in their interest to do so. Of course no one polices good or evil, because it's a farce to begin with. The best is can be is arbitrary.

Wow, here we go again.

Yes you did say that, I even quoted it.

Punishes people for doing "evil" things.

Yes players do police a little when it suits them. But trying to base a system where players do 100% of the policing with no support nor rules from a system in game will not work. Players will not follow any kind of structure.
Good and Evil isnt a farce at all. Devs have a good idea what Good and Evil actions are.

[aliksteel]

Maybe I'm way off here, But it sounds like Trenchfoot want's a free for all, Because without good and evil rules in-game, Thats what you have. And beyond the tribal safe area's, Thats what we have now.

The sad thing is, No one really knows how the alignment system(At lest I don't know yet) will work or when it will go in-game.

[Dubanka]

Maybe I'm way off here, But it sounds like Trenchfoot want's a free for all, Because without good and evil rules in-game, Thats what you have. And beyond the tribal safe area's, Thats what we have now.

The sad thing is, No one really knows how the alignment system(At lest I don't know yet) will work or when it will go in-game.

yeah the allignment system is antoher topic unto itself...and yet another issue where the player base's discussion of it would be greatly benefitted by the dev's stating, in detail, what their current design philosophy is/was and how they currently plan to implement the system. jabbering about it, or getting overtly hostile about this or htat system is really kinda pointless at the moment...since it's all speculation.

And no, i don't want to see any 2 year old quotes telling me what jordi's intent was on some given day regarding the system.

[Book]

Considering they have a new game designer, perhaps that system is still in limbo and they simply don't have specifics yet. I presume they'll announce it and open it up for discussion when they themselves have a better sense of what's going on...

[Aethaeryn]

People police themselves? When? Not where I live.. we have police for that. Also this is a game. People have to log off and since it is not actually their life taken. . and the clothing on their actual back that was taken. . they aren't going to band up for survival. They might move on to another game. . . they might just decide to join the free for all and not bother with other elements of the game.

People have in the past. . policed themselves when after the lynching the guy remained dead. This is not the case in MMOs.

Now. . give people a limited number or resurections and and then that might change things. People might band together to kill someone knowing that they might actually accomplish something.

The way games work right now it takes ten times the effort to find and hunt down a PK that is randomly bothering you than it does for him to bother whoever he decides to target. And then once you kill him. . he pops back up.

I hate alignment systems myself but there needs to be some form of penalty to those who constantly kill others (assuming their tribes are not at war). Since there is no permadeath there is not much recourse. As soon as they add perma-death and get rid of safe zones I will be the first person to turn PK. . until then it is just too far on the side of the PK. . with the combat stats and getting the drop on the guy trying to gather grass. What sense of victory is there in that?

[ColonelTEE3]

yeah the allignment system is antoher topic unto itself...and yet another issue where the player base's discussion of it would be greatly benefitted by the dev's stating, in detail, what their current design philosophy is/was and how they currently plan to implement the system. jabbering about it, or getting overtly hostile about this or htat system is really kinda pointless at the moment...since it's all speculation.

And no, i don't want to see any 2 year old quotes telling me what jordi's intent was on some given day regarding the system.

Dubanka thats not nice. You've effectively cut off Jadzias tongue by saying that.

Personally im currently a little more concerned with the initial identification of ally/enemy or good/evil, before we even enter the discussion of what that means at all. If you haven't noticed, you can't so much as see a persons name until you run up to within a yard of him. Even if you do get that close, and you do get your cursor on him long enough to read his name -- its Black, which shows up very nicely on an already (usually) dark terrain surrounding you.

I know i bring up darkfall a lot but ill do it again. They had a simple way of determining "good" or "red" - blue names versus red names. This alignment was superseded by diplomacy -- an ally, evil or good, turned up dark green. A clan member, evil or good, turned up bright green. A warring clan showed up as orange. It was also much much easier to identify these status of good or evil, ally or enemy, from greater distances.

Group fights will be a clusterfuck in this game if they don't first improve the identification of players. In theory you could outfit your teams with very specific armor sets, but of course your enemies could simply copy that outfit, or send in one of their own in that outfit and have him cause havoc and confusion.

They could have the most intuitive alignment system in gaming industry and no one would know who was what until you were close enough to be killed by them anyway.

[MrDDT]

Group fights will be a clusterfuck in this game if they don't first improve the identification of players. In theory you could outfit your teams with very specific armor sets, but of course your enemies could simply copy that outfit, or send in one of their own in that outfit and have him cause havoc and confusion.

They could have the most intuitive alignment system in gaming industry and no one would know who was what until you were close enough to be killed by them anyway.

Truth right there.
I posted about this in another thread, but ya thats right.
I dont want to see targeting someone with a WOW type system, but Darkfall's system worked well with still allowing confusion in combat to happen if people didnt focus.

[Drevar]

I believe there was an intent to have both an enemies system and a rivals system for tribes. Enemies would be the pure Good vs Evil within the regular alignment system while rivals would allow Good and Neutral to declare war on each other outside the regular system.

The more lately described opt-in system would pretty much override that, though, as it would be a purely consentual war with anyone.

[Dubanka]

the ability to dye in guild colors/tabards/symbols would solve the player identification issue.

[MrDDT]

the ability to dye in guild colors/tabards/symbols would solve the player identification issue.

If those ideas had to be worn and were not traded yep. I doubt that will happen.

[Book]

The dyes and symbols would be cool.

I like the ambiguity and uncertainty we have right now. More immersive and a good reason to flash a peaceful emote from a distance.

Perhaps doesn't make it easy on the more pvp inclined, but since when should pvp be easy.

[Trenchfoot]

Good/Neutral/Evil is LESS dynamic than friend or foe. Here's what I mean.

- Allow tribes to form nations.
- A single tribe can found a nation, but requires X number of tribes to sign on before the nation is established.
- The main nation control panel would go to the leader of the tribe that founded the nation, making that tribe the nations capitol city. All tribe leaders in a nation would acquire a nation control panel to interact with their nation.
- Nations can friend tribes who aren't already a part of a nation (including them in their nation).
- Friending friends of foes should be disallowed, requiring you to break with current relationships in order to establish new ones.
- Nations can foe tribes if they do not belong to a nation. If they do belong to a nation, your nation must foe the nation of the tribe you wish to foe.
- Tribes can friend or foe other tribes. Again, they can't friend their nations foes or foe their nations friends, without first breaking from the nation.
- Tribes/nations that you are neutral to, need never be marked either friend or foe (simply keep them off of both lists).

- Friending tribes/nations must be done at 'their' totem. Requiring them to receive you for a pow-wow. Perhaps the tribe you intend to friend can set up an ally type quest listing what is required before they will accept your friendship (tribute/agreements). Nations/tribes can then control who friends them by receiving them (letting them through the gates to have access to the totem), and by presenting pre-requisites before they'll let you friend them. In other words, friending is something TWO tribes do, not just one. Some tribes will just have to sit at home and wait for friends to come along. Others will have a willful goal and have to travel to acquire their allies (unite the tribes).

- Attacking a tribe (using a war totem to invade tribal lands) should auto foe you to that tribe, and/or their nation. Neutrals can be attacked (warfare), but it will make them foes.
- Possibly other actions could auto foe, as long as a single tribe isn't able to pull the rug out from under a nation by it.
- White names for friends, black names for neutral, red names for foes. Or insert color scheme here.
- Friends cannot be attacked, except maybe out in the free world (boxing matches)?
- Perhaps individuals can be good or evil, and then tribes can police themselves by disallowing one or the other in their tribe? Some tribes can accept both (civil unrest).
- Other ideas?

My argument doesn't stem from an intention to make everything FFA. I'm not against having a system, just against the good/neutral/evil system as I have heard it was planned to work. As someone else said, maybe they have something that will make good/neutral/evil as dynamic, ripe with real diplomacy, and brimming with player choice as the system described above? I just don't know yet.

Poke holes in it guys.

EDIT: Question - Should individuals and tribes posses the potential for both good and evil? Should they be allowed to posses both qualities (as people, tribes, and nations always do)?

EDIT EDIT: Friend or foe would be better explained ally/enemy in this example really. In other words, you should have friends who aren't allies, and allies who aren't necessarily friends, etc. This system would also allow a form of diplomatic conquest.

EDIT EDIT EDIT: This example doesn't necessarily exclude a good/evil system. In fact it could be a layer apart from an individual/personal flag of good or evil. Again, this is a beef with the good/evil system as it relates to tribal warfare.

[Phazaar]

Dubanka thats not nice. You've effectively cut off Jadzias tongue by saying that.



Laughed so hard I spat my drink over my keyboard :D GJ!