Wars, Sieges, Safe Zones, etc

[KeithStone]

I tried to look at this from both types of players, those that like the care bear style (no offense intended) and those that like the ffa pvp no safe zone type of players.

The basis of this outline is to distinguish what a conquest tribe and non-conquest tribe can do. (it is not meant to determine how an actual siege will work)

Conquest Tribe
1. Can control an unlimited amount of contested totems (limited amount of non-contested totems)
2. Ability to set a capital totem within the zones that were live on official launch day - this totem cannot be seiged
3. Can be attacked on any owned territory
4. Asset damage can be done to structures at any time including the capital
5. Sieges must be initiated by whatever siege system is implemented
6. Capital city cannot be seiged
7. Initiate a territory trade, purchase, hand off etc (territories can be sold this way to other tribes)
8. Ability to decline or accept a trade, purchase, hand off etc
9. Only an official tribe leader can initiate a trade, purchase, hand off etc, if the trade, purchase, hand off etc is accpeted the territory is placed under this tribe owned by the requesting tribe leader.
10. Only the initial tribe leader who placed the totem can accept or decline a trade, purchase, hand off etc (prevents griefing by stealing a tribe by the members)
11. If a territory trade, purchase, hand off etc is unanswered after 7 days, it is automatically declined.

The following is based on a siege system and would be adjusted according to whatever siege system is implemented This is just how I think it could work
12. Sieges can be initiated by those with proper rank (through whatever siege initiation system that is implemented)
13. As soon as a siege is initiated the tribe leader will receive an instant message if logged in, if not logged in this message will popup on next login.
14. A message will read, "Your tribe has been seiged, click ok to continue or click surrender to initiate a 24 hour countdown to a handover" or whatever, something along the lines of that
15. The siege will start in exactly 24 hours from when it was initiated. (again this would be setup however a siege system is implented)

Non-Conquest Tribe
1. Can control a limited amount of territories within non-contested zones
2. Ability to set a capital totem within the zones that were live on official launch day
3. Capital city cannot recieve asset damage
4. Capital city is a safe zone
5. All other owned territory can recieve asset damage at any time and can tribe members can be attack on the territory
6. No controlling territory can be sieged
7. Initiate a territory trade, purchase, hand off etc (territories can be sold this way to other tribes)
8. Ability to decline or accept a trade, purchase, hand off etc
9. Only an official tribe leader can initiate a trade, purchase, hand off etc, if the trade, purchase, hand off etc is accpeted the territory is placed under this tribe owned by the requesting tribe leader.
10. Only the initial tribe leader who placed the totem can accept or decline a trade, purchase, hand off etc (prevents griefing by stealing a tribe by the members)
11. If a territory trade, purchase, hand off etc is unanswered after 7 days, it is automatically declined.

Penalities for asset damage
Any member of a good or neutral tribe attacking another good or neutral tribes assets would be treated the
same as attacking another good or neutral player with whatever alignment system is implemented.

With something like this in place and a totem decay system it would make for a very exciting game.

I know there's going to be flaws, so let's find them and fix them.

Edit: Added after original post based on feedback
1. All areas outside tribal territories will still have the same FFA PVP rules as now based on the alignment system when it's implemented.
2. Setting yourself as a conquest or non-conquest tribe would be just like setting your tribe alignment, once it's set you can't change it without disbanding your tribe and resetting your totem.
3. A conquest tribe could have any totem seiged at any time, so you would have to be carefull about how you split your forces - this would control how many conquest totems you place.

The problem with this system
1. Capital cities controlled by non-conquest tribes can be a used as a safe zone for not only themselves but can allow other pvp'ers access inside their walls when being hunted by other pvp'ers
2. Non-Conquest tribes can setup a 2nd tribe next to their capital that is non-contested that is used as their Conquesting tribe. - the members can jump back and forth between the 2 tribes

[MrDDT]

Other than being sold or traded why would anyone accept a take over?

[KeithStone]

Other than being sold or traded why would anyone accept a take over?

the whole point of initiating a take over is to trade, sell, or buy someones territory without having to initiate a siege - that will keep you from having to perform the extra steps of whatever a siege requires.

[NorCalGooey]

Sounds like you put some great t hought into this. This is a system very similar to what I have posted about a few times.

Gives everyone what they want. Only thing is, remember that somehow Conquest Tribes will simply set up an additional tribe that is a Non Conquest Tribe, so they can store their items without risk of losing them.

The only way I see this working, is a separation of conquest lands and non conquest lands by a "no mans land". This "no mans land" could be a ring around the map (no mans land should stretch 1000m at least, from non conquest to conquest lands), that actually serves a secondary purpose of creating PvP areas for both non conquest and conquest tribes. Even if Conquest Tribes do set up a Non Conquest Tribe as well, they will at least have to haul their supplies back and forth from this safe area to even do war (or risk losing the items by keeping them at the conquest totem). Allowing safe totems to be placed in conquest lands or conquest totems to be placed in safe lands, will, not, work. And there must be a no man's land in between, otherwise at the boundary of conquest and non conquest lands there could be a non conquest totem right beside a conquest one (and likely those will be the same tribe, abusing the system).

Agreed, there will be flaws, like the one just mentioned but we need to discuss this thoroughly. Please discuss further if you see any alternatives or improvements.

[KeithStone]

Sounds like you put some great t hought into this. This is a system very similar to what I have posted about a few times.

Gives everyone what they want. Only thing is, remember that somehow Conquest Tribes will simply set up an additional tribe that is a Non Conquest Tribe, so they can store their items without risk of losing them.

The only way I see this working, is a separation of conquest lands and non conquest lands by a "no mans land". This "no mans land" could be a ring around the map (no mans land should stretch 1000m at least, from non conquest to conquest lands), that actually serves a secondary purpose of creating PvP areas for both non conquest and conquest tribes. Even if Conquest Tribes do set up a Non Conquest Tribe as well, they will at least have to haul their supplies back and forth from this safe area to even do war (or risk losing the items by keeping them at the conquest totem). Allowing safe totems to be placed in conquest lands or conquest totems to be placed in safe lands, will, not, work. And there must be a no man's land in between, otherwise at the boundary of conquest and non conquest lands there could be a non conquest totem right beside a conquest one (and likely those will be the same tribe, abusing the system).

Agreed, there will be flaws, like the one just mentioned but we need to discuss this thoroughly. Please discuss further if you see any alternatives or improvements.

I don't see a need for no-mans land, if you select to be a non-conquest tribe then you are still vulnerable outside your capital and any other territory you own within non-conquest areas- you just can't be seiged.

I'll update my post to make that clear.

[NorCalGooey]

So non conquest totems, even capitals, can have items looted from baskets?

The problem still persists, if not.

[MrDDT]

the whole point of initiating a take over is to trade, sell, or buy someones territory without having to initiate a siege - that will keep you from having to perform the extra steps of whatever a siege requires.


So this is only for trade / selling totems?

[NorCalGooey]

Imagine that you wanted to take someone over. Well it may be cheaper for you just to pay them for the land then it would be to actually gather materials and forces for a siege. They may take something in return for losing land, where as with a siege they losing everything and gain nothing except for putting a slightly larger dent in your wealth than it would have cost if you just paid them for the land.

[KeithStone]

So non conquest totems, even capitals, can have items looted from baskets?

The problem still persists, if not.

I think you are misunderstanding me

Anything outside a tribe territory no matter where you are in the world is FFA PVP, it doesn't matter if you are in a conquest or non-conquest area.

The option is to set your tribe as a Conquest Tribe or Non-Conquest Tribe - could also be worded as Warring Tribe or Non-Warring Tribe - although I like the conquest or non-conquest titles better.

A non-conquest or non-warring tribe would have safe zone capitals - but if they take anther territory in a non-contested region they can still be attack on that territory, they just can't be seiged.

[NorCalGooey]

You are still missing the point that conquest tribes can set up non conquest tribes with a capital totem directly next to their conquest tribe. Thus they have safe goods.

Do you not see how this causes a problem? When capturing conquest lands, there will be nothing of value in those lands. Everything will be kept in the safe totem non conquest tribe because that is the better way to do it, offered by the game mechanics.

If there was a forced seperation of non conquest and conquest areas, then that would force more long distance trade between non conquest and conquest totems (even if they are used by the same tribe), and the decision therefore will have to be made, how many of X amount of materials can we afford to lose at the conquest totem? how many materials would be ideal to keep at the conquest totem incase of a siege, so we wouldn't have to make constant risky trades through no mans land incase we were sieged for 3 days and ran out of materials.

This is the potential of Xsyon :) but oh so much more...like huge creatures that take parties and raids of players to take down, that roam the world growing in strength with each player they kill. monsters that actually provided great loot, and with the incentive of needing that loot to keep your territory safe, people will be drawn to PvE. Anyway, thats for another discussion.

[MrDDT]

I really see no reason to have a contest tribe, other than "unlimited" totems. Which is a bonus, but whats the point of a totem if it doesnt offer anything extra. You remove the totem bonuses to allow them to place more totems.

The trade system doesnt make sense either for totems. Why not just have a trade option instead of "sieging" it for trade?

This is also missing a TON of details of how sieges will work. Not sure how well 24 hour timers on sieges will work either. Seems a little short. Standard from other games has been 3 days.

Why have it so only the founding leader can do these "trades"? I mean it should just be an option to allow someone to do it or not, else what if the founding leader is inactive the tribe will be stuck like that forever.
If you are trading to GET another tribe, why would that be a big deal to get extra totems?

[KeithStone]

You are still missing the point that conquest tribes can set up non conquest tribes with a capital totem directly next to their conquest tribe. Thus they have safe goods.

A non-conquest tribe cannot place any totem in a contested area at all - so this would be impossible

I made lots of edits to the original post, so go read it over again and see if it still leaves a loophole

[NorCalGooey]

Ok, but they can place it on the border right where the contested area and non contested areas meet.

Multiple accounts will be abused. Hell, that doesn't even have to happen. All you have to do is have one member who doesn't particulary care for combat, but still likes to help out the tribe. He could start his own non conquest homestead to keep all the tribes goodies at, and place that homestead right next to the border of conquest lands.


One alternative would be to have greater rewards the farther away from non contested territory boundary (lets just say, where the green mist starts for now) a tribe put expansion boundaries. This would give greater incentive to a lot of tribes to settle outwards and not want to abuse having their conquest totem directly next to non conquest area border.

[MrDDT]

The problem with this system
1. Capital cities controlled by non-conquest tribes can be a used as a safe zone for not only themselves but can allow other pvp'ers access inside their walls when being hunted by other pvp'ers
2. Non-Conquest tribes can setup a 2nd tribe next to their capital that is non-contested that is used as their Conquesting tribe. - the members can jump back and forth between the 2 tribes

These are the major problems the PVPers would have.

Which I think making the time limit to join another tribe after leaving one to something like 24 hours or 36 hours would help this.

[NorCalGooey]

Also, if there is going to be unlimited totem potential, the more totems you throw down, the harder the next one becomes to maintain (with resources or whatever, assuming that totem system gets put in) . So there should be a soft cap on amount of totems, so to speak.

[KeithStone]

Also, if there is going to be unlimited totem potential, the more totems you throw down, the harder the next one becomes to maintain (with resources or whatever, assuming that totem system gets put in) . So there should be a soft cap on amount of totems, so to speak.

The other thing that you might think about, I didn't mention this - I guess i should - any of your totems could be seiged at the same time, so you wouldn't be able to defend them all at all times, which would limit how many you could hold.

[NorCalGooey]

Right, but without resources needed to maintain and place a totem, one tribe will just fill the world with useless totems. Unless a new conquest totem could only be placed every 7 days or something like that, but still, resources should be needed to put it down and maintaining it should be more than just defending it, it should be maintaining it with resources.

[MrDDT]

Right, but without resources needed to maintain and place a totem, one tribe will just fill the world with useless totems. Unless a new conquest totem could only be placed every 7 days or something like that, but still, resources should be needed to put it down and maintaining it should be more than just defending it, it should be maintaining it with resources.


Ya a new totem system would be needed because the current one with unlimited, would just be littered with totems.

[KeithStone]

Right, but without resources needed to maintain and place a totem, one tribe will just fill the world with useless totems. Unless a new conquest totem could only be placed every 7 days or something like that, but still, resources should be needed to put it down and maintaining it should be more than just defending it, it should be maintaining it with resources.

that's why I added on there that the system I talk about plus totem decay would make it work.

[NorCalGooey]

As long as the totem decay comes from lack of resources being put in, and not just inactivity. A tribe full of 100 actives could have unlimited totems that never decay and in theory, all they would have to do is show up at each siege and protect their totem. Where as if they needed more resources for each additional totem , it would be extremely hard for any zerg to form because of that point where they simply cannot maintain resources for all totems AND defend against sieges too.

[Venciera]

Funny, I started a thread way back about the need for a "Tribal Upkeep" system that involves putting resources into the totem to maintain it. Which is exactly what Xyson needs, but of course everyone was arguing with me about it. The system Keith outlined would make Xyson way, waaay more interesting, but it also needs a new totem system (not surprised)

[KeithStone]

Funny, I started a thread way back about the need for a "Tribal Upkeep" system that involves putting resources into the totem to maintain it. Which is exactly what Xyson needs, but of course everyone was arguing with me about it. The system Keith outlined would make Xyson way, waaay more interesting, but it also needs a new totem system (not surprised)

hey Venciera! it's nice to see you still lurk through these forums

MrDDT outlined an awesome totem decay idea that is linked in the suggestions forum, if you haven't seen it you should go check it out.

[MrDDT]

Funny, I started a thread way back about the need for a "Tribal Upkeep" system that involves putting resources into the totem to maintain it. Which is exactly what Xyson needs, but of course everyone was arguing with me about it. The system Keith outlined would make Xyson way, waaay more interesting, but it also needs a new totem system (not surprised)


Venciera, you are right then and right now. It was needed back then and people should have listened to you. Its been about a year since you said that. Times change people have played and know what is more needed now. You will see the same people in your topic saying they need decay (on buildings items etc) now also which were saying before they didnt want it.

After playing for 6+ months on a live server they can see now clearer that these things are needed. I have this same people. I will make suggestions based on my experiences and people are just not ready for them. They will get really upset and fight them. Then after they get there way, they start to change their minds a little. Some fully change their minds. This has been a major problem in Xsyon. You have these people crying on the forums, about "We want everything now or Im taking my ball and going home" type of attitudes and its not helpful for the long run of the game.

If this decay was in the game at the start, if strife was in at the start, and many of the other things that were said by a few people with most upset about them were in. The game would be a lot better off. No instead we have safe zones, we have unlimited resources, and bored players.

http://www.xsyon.com/forum/project.php?issueid=1230
That link is another totem decay idea. (They closed down suggestions forums and moved it into this project forums) Check it out and comment please. I think its well received.

That totem decay will work well with what Keith is talking about here.

[Dubanka]

surprised to see anything combat related being brought up.
some good discussion on the seiging aspect was done in this thread as well (http://www.xsyon.com/forum/showthread.php/7110-Sieging).

The general impasse that exists is that I don't ever see there being non-consensual warfare that involves any degree of asset destruction or takeover...and i don't ever see the non-pvp crowd agreeing for any advantage to exist for 'warring' tribes that they can not participate in without warring (thus making the act of warring pointless).

[NorCalGooey]

Dub I see it as a possibility. Why should someone get the save advantages as someone without also having those disadvantages?

There is a much larger niche of PvPers interested in sandbox than carebears. If they want to see the game in the 1000s of population again, and 100s online at a time, they will have to cater more to the PvPers.

I hope you are wrong, anyway.