PDA

View Full Version : 01/25/2016 - Feedback Request - War Server Proposal



Xsyon
01-25-2016, 01:19 PM
Hello everyone,

I've written up some proposed improvements to the War Server based on previous ideas of mine and feedback from players. These changes would take place after most of the current creature and combat changes I'm working on are complete.

Proposed Sytem:

- Tribes of BAND size or above would be allowed potential control over an entire territory. To first control a territory they must have their tribe within the territory and then place 4 control totems within the territory.

- Control totems would claim a small plot of land, 20x20 meters. They would need to be spread throughout the zone with a minimum distance between each control totem.

- Twice a week control totems would become 'open' for a certain period of time (an hour). This could happen more often. The time could be set by the controlling tribe and would be listed on the totem.

- While open, players from another tribe can occupy the control totem area and take it over. Claiming a control totem would be occupation based (like several PvP objectives in Warcraft where having a player of a faction increases its value until a limit is reached and the objective is claimed). The goal during a battle would be to kill off your enemy while your tribe mates remain alive and active within the control totem’s area.

- If the limit is not reached during the 'open' time, the current tribe retains control.

- Control of the territory would allow the tribe to set the entire territory to Safe or PvP.

- Control of the territory would give the tribe and its allies resource bonuses. Tribe members and allies would get:
2x amount of scavenged resources
bonus to quality level (but not exceeding the max quality)
increased chance of finding rare materials

- Tribes could gain control and advantages over other territories by capturing all control points.

- Optional: Setting a territory to Safe would give lesser bonuses than setting it to PvP.

- Optional: Control of the territory could entirely prevent non tribe members and allies from gathering resources on the land.

Potential Future Enhancements:

- Keeping control over a territory could also require some form of upkeep (resources? blood?).

- On top of the controlled territories: High danger zones could be full loot PvP with slightly higher resource bonuses, medium danger zones could be random loot PvP with no resource bonuses and low danger zones could be no PvP and no resource bonuses (or the same as medium danger zones).

- Controlled territories could give a chance for extremely rare materials or resources that would only be found on controlled territories.

- Building allowed at control totems. This could first be limited to single story building and would require destruction of at least gates.

- Allowing all players to build ramps and platforms (to get over walls) when control totems are ‘open’.

- Gathering resources or hunting on territory controlled by another tribe could be considered ‘poaching’. It would be possible but not yield bonus results and would decrease your alignment towards evil. This would require the full good vs evil system to be in place.

Questions For Players:

- What is the minimum size tribe that should be allowed to control a territory? I think BAND is good to start off with.

- How many control totems should be required to claim a territory? I think 4 is a good starting point, possibly 2 or 3 though due to the currently low population.

- How much land should a control totem claim?

- How often should control totems become ‘open’?

- For how long should control totems become ‘open’?

- Should control totem’s alternate being open, or should all of them be open at one time?

- Would you like to see the controlling tribe set a territory to Safe or PvP? Or would you like to see controlled territories always be set to PvP? (Regardless, while control totems are open the entire territory would be open to PvP).

Darkwalker9
01-25-2016, 02:13 PM
First I love the idea. I have been on the fence about playing on the PVP server, I miss the old days of having that threat running around in your mind. However this proposed idea would be enough to push me to highly consider the PVP server as well as pushing to grow some strong PVPers into the game.

To your questions -
- What is the minimum size tribe that should be allowed to control a territory? I think BAND is good to start off with. Personally i think it should be Clan size

- How many control totems should be required to claim a territory? I think 4 is a good starting point, possibly 2 or 3 though due to the currently low population. I think no less then 4 unless you change it up so low danger is 2 medium 3 high and extreme 4.

- How much land should a control totem claim? 20x20 is fine

- How often should control totems become ‘open’?

- For how long should control totems become ‘open’? I think once a week is good any less or any longer would just make it feel like a chore or not a big deal.

- Should control totem’s alternate being open, or should all of them be open at one time? This one is tricky... Many people are going to complain that is to hard to defend all of them being open at a time... However people that are coordinated will not struggle with this.

- Would you like to see the controlling tribe set a territory to Safe or PvP? Or would you like to see controlled territories always be set to PvP? (Regardless, while control totems are open the entire territory would be open to PvP). Its a PVP server i don't understand the idea of a safe zone... that is what your tribe is for and why you build walls.

wastelandstoic
01-26-2016, 06:20 AM
1) Minimum size. I think Homestead or no minimum size would be fine. If fewer players want to try to take on a larger group so be it and allow everyone to get in on the action.

2) Control totems. I think this one could be tied to claim size. A homestead would have to place one control totem; a band would have to place two; a clan three; and a tribe 4.

3) Claim size. I think 25 x 25 should be minimum claim size especially if you can only hold one territory at a time.

4) Control totems -open. I think they should cycle on a 24 hour basis. Closed for 1 RL day then open at least an hour or more.

5) Control totem -open time. One hour sounds appropriate possibly more.

6) All totems open or alternating. I'd say all open at the same time. From #1 above, a homestead defending a claim would place one totem and defend only that one --possibly against a much larger force. A tribe, with quite a few more members, would have to place 4 totems and defend 4. If this type of totem calculation is used the number of totems needed to claim a territory could be determined instead by the number of active players at the time of claim totem placement --to serve as a slight equalizing factor when a small group is facing a much larger group.

Question: What's going to prevent a tribe from ignoring another tribe’s claim and just finding their own extreme scav area and placing a claim totem there? Ad infinitum.. Where no one really disputes other tribe’s claims but still reaps the resource rewards of their own claims.

I defiantly think upkeep of these claim totems should start as soon as they are placed and will have to be fairly strict yet balanced with the time/ rewards of the claim. Also, I think there should be a limit to how long tribes can hold a claim area, say 2 weeks, and then said tribe cannot place a claim totem again for a certain time, say one week. And /or possibly restrict said tribe from placing a totem in the same area as a previous claim totem for a certain period of time, say 30 RL days.

This would limit tribes from holding a territory for long periods of time and keep them on the move to scout new areas thus coming into contact with other tribes with claims to possibly dispute. Some sort of system along these lines, I think, should be in place.

* On another note (but still linked to this one) here’s hoping you are able to bring on board at least one other coder to continue with the existing development list since you will have 2 different servers/ player bases to appease.

wastelandstoic
01-26-2016, 06:36 AM
Another question/ concern: How will claim totems effect tribes existing in the area at time of placement? I can foresee griefers placing totems right up against existing homesteads solely for annoying/ harassing other players.

chojinuk
01-26-2016, 06:52 AM
I like this idea alot.

Though Im on the fence about including homesteads because of a few reasons.

1 player cant really defend against lots of people right ?

and it will give even more of an incentive for homesteads to join together.


Abuses.

So the defending tribe, what if lots of tribes all descend on the defending tribe and overwhelm it
have you forseen this ? or is this part of it.

What if the defending tribe gets lots of other tribes to help defend ?


The way i would like to see it is if its one tribe versus another tribe, one defending and one attacking.



But it is a good idea

Sark

[EDIT]

actually scratch that, 1 tribe vs 1 tribe would just mean the Mega Tribes always wins wether its defending or attacking.

So there has to be a way for smaller tribes to take on the Mega tribe. so yes more then 1 tribe should be involved whether its attacking or defending.

And its only control points, not the actual tribeland of the Tribe. having lots of tribe being able to throw their hand in either attacking or defending would insure no 1 tribe dominates and would meand lots of to-ing and frow-ing from week to week.

xyberviri
01-26-2016, 01:09 PM
I love


Questions For Players:

- What is the minimum size tribe that should be allowed to control a territory? I think BAND is good to start off with.

- How many control totems should be required to claim a territory? I think 4 is a good starting point, possibly 2 or 3 though due to the currently low population.

- How much land should a control totem claim?

- How often should control totems become ‘open’?

- For how long should control totems become ‘open’?

- Should control totem’s alternate being open, or should all of them be open at one time?

- Would you like to see the controlling tribe set a territory to Safe or PvP? Or would you like to see controlled territories always be set to PvP? (Regardless, while control totems are open the entire territory would be open to PvP).

-Minimum Size:
I think band is a good size

-Number of totems:
4 Is a good starting point, Zones are 512x512 (@2x2)

-how much land
100M x 100m

- How often should control totems become ‘open’?
once a week, 7 days from the time the totem comes under control.

- For how long should control totems become ‘open’?
2-4 hours (@ 1/week for 2-4 hours your looking at 8-16 hours of PvP a month for just control points.)

- Should control totem’s alternate being open, or should all of them be open at one time?
Open them all up at the same time, if a tribe can control and secure all of the points then its part of the reward.

- Would you like to see the controlling tribe set a territory to Safe or PvP?
I would like to see conflict zones with a select-able option tied to controlling all of the control points in the zone. IE if you dont control all the control points then the zone stays in pvp, if you control all of them then the zone can be flipped while not in conflict.




- On top of the controlled territories: High danger zones could be full loot PvP with slightly higher resource bonuses, medium danger zones could be random loot PvP with no resource bonuses and low danger zones could be no PvP and no resource bonuses (or the same as medium danger zones).

YES, i would honestly say move away from loot in Medium zones, if i jump a crafter in a medium zone they might have some motive to fight back and even if i kill them they will probably hurt me, which means i in turn might die to the wild life. That alone is reason to not just pick random fights with people.



- Keeping control over a territory could also require some form of upkeep (resources? blood?).


You should use remains, IE animal sacrifices what ever it is it needs to be something that is hard to get and is valuable, heck maybe even crafted goods and food and things like that.

KeithStone
01-26-2016, 03:43 PM
Questions:

1. What happens to the control totems if the attacking force fails?

2. If the territory is set to safe, can you place control totems? If yes, how do you kill anyone when trying to take over an area if the area is safe from pvp?

3. How would you gain access if they used nothing but dirt walls with no way in?

4. How do you break down buildings if the area is set to safe?

5. Does this mean that if a tribe captures my area, my tribe can still use the area, we just can't control the settings of the area? (setting it to safe, pvp, etc)

6. What else are we not able to control if we lose the area?

7. Are there any settings that can be controlled if you lose the area to another tribe?

8. Once those control totems are placed, they are stuck on my tribe territory forever?

9. What happens exactly when the 4th totem is placed? (your tribe captures the area?)

10. How does a 2nd tribe initiate a takeover if the totems are already placed?

After these questions are answered I'll be able to give more thought about this system.

dmyhre
01-26-2016, 05:04 PM
- What is the minimum size tribe that should be allowed to control a territory? I think BAND is good to start off with.

Agreed. I think band size could even always be the right minimum.

- How many control totems should be required to claim a territory? I think 4 is a good starting point, possibly 2 or 3 though due to the currently low population.

I propose a minimum of 1, with requirements and drawbacks to establishing more. Say two tribes compete for a territory and each hold one totem; they could either capture the other tribe's totem to monopolize the territory, or place a third totem to hold a territorial majority of two totems versus their opponent's one. (Territory ownership could be determined by whoever holds a majority of totems in that territory.) Their opponent could then establish their own second totem to contest ownership of the territory. A contested territory could be lawless, with open PvP, until resolved.
Totems could have scaling upkeep requirements, so that more totems are more difficult to maintain. A vast empire would therefore have difficulty maintaining its sovereignty when faced with numerous local tribes, providing a better opportunity for rising tribes to carve out territories of their own. (Perhaps territory laws, such whether PvP exists, could be established by a voting system, whereby multiple bands could essentially share territorial ownership, each totem controlled giving them one vote). This means competing tribes could stake out more totems in order to gain a majority in a territory, but if they can't support those totems' upkeep, then they have doomed themselves to lose control of that territory.

Summary: Territorial laws could be established through votes. Each totem controlled would give a band one vote. Majority rules.

- How much land should a control totem claim?

- How often should control totems become ‘open’?

Once per week, per territory.

- For how long should control totems become ‘open’?

One hour. This is enough time for concentrated battle plans to unfold.

- Should control totem’s alternate being open, or should all of them be open at one time?

Territories could alternate semi-randomly, with preferred times being whenever the online population peak is for that territory. Therefore a territory could be controlled by a Polish tribe, with PvP running during their own peak hours.
Sometimes two totems could be contested at the same time on the same day, sometimes more. Alternating would allow larger, active, and powerful clans to spread across territory throughout the week, while not needing to defend their captured territory until the next week comes. We might even see roving warbands this way, who don't bother to establish totem defenses, and leave ruins in their wake.

- Would you like to see the controlling tribe set a territory to Safe or PvP? Or would you like to see controlled territories always be set to PvP? (Regardless, while control totems are open the entire territory would be open to PvP)

Absolutely. This would be a great way to bind PvP and PvE servers together. It would be fascinating to see some territories holding a peaceful balance, while others are in constant chaos. Territories could remain safe by establishing numerous totems and using the voting mechanic I outlined earlier.

millsdo
01-26-2016, 07:34 PM
I love this. My only concern:

Single players like myself. As long as they cannot get close to my tribe and grief me I like the ideas a lot. I don't mind PVP, I just want to do it on my terms and not be forced into something.

Xsyon
01-26-2016, 08:17 PM
First to make sure everything is clear:

- Controlling a territory via control totems would give the tribe power over the entire territory (Zephyr, Round Hill) etc. Safety settings and resource bonuses would apply to the entire territory and not just a zone or the area covered by control totems.

- The control totem areas are just battlegrounds that at first couldn't be terraformed or built on.

- Resource bonuses would apply only to controlled territories while they are controlled.

Answers to questions:


What's going to prevent a tribe from ignoring another tribe’s claim and just finding their own extreme scav area and placing a claim totem there? Ad infinitum.. Where no one really disputes other tribe’s claims but still reaps the resource rewards of their own claims.
Theoretically various tribes could claim separate territories and leave each other alone without contest. This will depend on the players. I'm sure that some players will want to take over other claims.

Also, scavenging resources will remain regional and I will likely adjust the balance to make sure that certain resources appear only in certain zones. This would make it desirable for one tribe to control various territories.


How will claim totems effect tribes existing in the area at time of placement? I can foresee griefers placing totems right up against existing homesteads solely for annoying/ harassing other players.
Players living in claimed territories but not part of the conquering tribe will have to live with the current setting (Safe or PvP) but will not benefit from the resource bonuses (so resources will be as usual for them). They could ally with the controlling tribe to gain bonuses or they could assist other tribes to take over the territory.

I don't see how control totems could be used to grief players.


What happens to the control totems if the attacking force fails?

The defenders maintain control of the territory.




If the territory is set to safe, can you place control totems? If yes, how do you kill anyone when trying to take over an area if the area is safe from pvp?

If the territory is set to safe, it means it's currently under control and no more totems can be placed. When the next 'battle' occurs and a control totem is 'open', the entire territory would be set to PvP while the battle lasts. Uncontrolled territories would always be set to PvP.



How would you gain access if they used nothing but dirt walls with no way in?

You can't terraform on control points. If terraforming is later allowed on control points there will need to be restrictions or way for players to destroy the dirt (allow all to terraform for example) during a battle.



How do you break down buildings if the area is set to safe?

As above. Nothing would be safe when a battle occurs.



Does this mean that if a tribe captures my area, my tribe can still use the area, we just can't control the settings of the area? (setting it to safe, pvp, etc)

Correct. You would need to live with the current setting and you could use the area but wouldn't receive the benefits (unless you were allied with the controlling tribe).



What else are we not able to control if we lose the area?

That's all.



Are there any settings that can be controlled if you lose the area to another tribe?

I haven't thought of anything, no.


Once those control totems are placed, they are stuck on my tribe territory forever?
I could allow the controlling tribe to move or even remove them completely. Also control totems would decay if a controlling tribe decays (in the rare case that would happen).



What happens exactly when the 4th totem is placed? (your tribe captures the area?)

Yes. So initially capturing a territory would be easy. Keeping it under control will be the challenge.



How does a 2nd tribe initiate a takeover if the totems are already placed?

By taking over the existing control totems when they are 'open'.

Upon further thought:

- I think control totems would need to alternate being open. I think it would be too difficult for a single tribe to fend off attackers at multiple control points simultaneously right now.

- I could set it up so that allies could join and attack together with the control going to the leading (largest) tribe.

- Yes, things like animal sacrifices would be good upkeep.

- If at the end of a battle no tribe controls all totems I could set it up so that the territory reverts to free and all control totems are lost, not allowing a tribe to place control totems until the next week (or maybe half a week).

If you still have questions, just ask. This is a general proposal and of course some of the details need to be worked out and probably adjusted after seeing how it plays out in game.

I'm hoping that more current War Server players will join in the discussion. Thanks for all the feedback so far!

Whorlok
01-26-2016, 09:23 PM
1) About Bonuses for holding a controlltotem:
a.)Fight is in each week on the middle of the week and on Saturday for 2 hours
b.)Controltotem must be maintaince with products from agriculture(potatoes or other) or Animal things
c.)Each controlpoints generated daily things what all the tribes needed most and rare resources: example daily 100 dollar...100 rare resources...and 100 nails..and 10 Human bones? (other pieces or daily higher amount additonal,or additional we can put self a wanted daily award!)
d).if a attacking tribe wins the fight on WEDNESDAY or SADURDAY they can loot/remove the amount of daily generated thing and then they can put the BUTTON DESTROY and set her own controltotem(if the have one free) or the put the BUTTON CHANGE THE OWNER! If you have your controltotems at your limit you can with capture a other controltotem improve your amount of controltotem
e.)the owner of the controlpoint can put out the daily rewards if the fight/OPEN TIME ends on WEDNESDAY and SATURDAY and
we have also a thing where we can build for EVENTS
2) Control totems. I think this one could be tied to claim size. A homestead would have to place one control totem; a band would have to place two; a clan three; and a tribe 4.

3) Claim size. I think 50 x 50 should be minimum claim size especially if you can only hold one territory at a time.

4) Control totems -open. 2 hour in the middle if the week and 2 hour on Saturday
5) Control totem -open time. TWO hour sounds appropriate possibly more.

6) All totems open or alternating. I'd say all open at the same time. From #1 above, a homestead defending a claim would place one totem and defend only that one --possibly against a much larger force. A tribe, with quite a few more members, would have to place 4 totems and defend 4. If this type of totem calculation is used the number of totems needed to claim a territory could be determined instead by the number of active players at the time of claim totem placement --to serve as a slight equalizing factor when a small group is facing a much larger group.

KeithStone
01-27-2016, 05:31 AM
I personally don't like the idea of being able to set a territory to, "safe from pvp", considering this is supposed to be the war server.

I can't imagine the amount of bitching that will come if to many areas are set to safe from pvp and the players on the war server start to feel like it's no longer a war server.

PVP'rs want pvp, they want to know where to go to get pvp and they want it 24/7, not just a couple times a week during an open takeover session.

The problem with pvp in this game right now on the warring server is that there are no PVP hotspots and the only way to get it makes it feel like griefing because you have to pretty much camp someones tibe location and wait for them to step off or camp the trash piles.

However, if you go this route, there should be much higher upkeep costs for keeping an area safe.

Another thing to think about is if you don't allow the non-tribe members and allies of that tribe to continue using their occupied space (rented house, etc) you're going to have people just quit playing instead of moving to another location.

I like the idea of the rare resources becoming available if set to PVP in that area, I also think that the resources you get should be varied, in order to create more value on an area for what it can produce.

The areas with the most valuable resources will be the most contested areas and tribes that don't want that kind of attention will go for the less valuable areas.

I think the process should work more like this:

1. You start placing your totems to initiate the takeover, when the first totem is placed a wager amount is taken. (if you lose the takeover, you lose your wager to the defending tribe)

The wager would help to control the chaos and create risk vs reward. (there should be some risk for losing a takeover)

2. The totems should be destroyable, you would need to place and guard your totems from destruction for a period of one hour.

3. In order to lay claim to the area, your 4th totem (or however many totems you need to place) must be placed down within that 1 hour.

4. If using 4 totems to claim an area, once your 3rd totem goes down any tribe that also placed control totems should have their totems removed.

5. The defenders would need to destroy all totems placed and/or keep the 4th totem from being placed during that one hour period.

If the defenders are successful, then all totems would be removed at the end of the one hour.

6. If the attackers are successful, all but the first totem should be removed.

The first totem placed would be the totem used for keeping up with the upkeep costs. If upkeep costs are not met after a set amount of time, the controlling totem would be removed and the original tribe would automatically regain control of the area.

As the controlling tribe, you would need to be able to get your upkeep costs to your totem.

Also, once you set either safe or pvp for that area, you shouldn't be able to change it again, or you would just change it to safe so that you can get your upkeep costs to the control totem without getting killed, then turn it back to pvp.

When the open period starts, the controlling totem should be removed, if nobody contests (the defenders can keep anyone from placing totems, or just no totems are placed) the area should go back to the defenders.

treyu
01-27-2016, 08:50 AM
- Imagine a territory has 3 guilds leaving there. what happens if all 3 tribes decide to put each one its own 4 control totems? how is then the territory owner decided? Wouldnˇt it be better if each territory, by default, had its own and single 20x20 area with 4 totems and it is that area the one that must be fought to control it? So that it is not the tribes who put the totems, but they are part of the territory already.

- About totems being active each day or each X period of time automatically, I think that is a wrong way of doing it. it is better if the owner (defender) had to set a period of time in which an attacker tribe could attack, that way tribes can organize better cause people can't be online everytime or when you decide. On the other hand, the attacker tribe, the one interested in conquering the territory, should have to PAY something (money, resources, animal sacrifice whatever so that it becomes also a "gold sink"). Conquering should be risky for the ones wanting to do it, so that a tribe has to really think about it before doing it so defenders-owners can't be trolled. That way it is also more rewarding too when you win (for attackers and defenders). Many games have this system in place, where attackers have to pay a price to declare war or do a siege to other enemy clan and where owners decide when their land is "protected" and when "vulnerable for attacking".

- You could even mix those 2 ideas I said before, by creating in each territory the 4 totems by default, and there could be a bidding system where every tribe that wants controls of that territory, has to bid. After X days, the tribe who bid more, wins the right to declare the war to the owner and try to conquer it. If they win, they get the territory bonuses etc. If they lose, the defender gets the rights but also X% of the attacker bid for them as prize.

- You could link pvp and pve by making something rare and expensive only obtainable through pve (rare animals, mist, revenants, etc) that is needed to declare the war or to bid etc, so that will make the player economy much better. Or even create a special weapon needed to conquer the totem that needs new mats only obtainable by pve or trading with players. And of course, owning territory bonuses have to be very rewarding and very good so that people are interested in conquering and it becomes a normal week to week activity in the game.

XenMistress
01-27-2016, 09:36 AM
- What is the minimum size tribe that should be allowed to control a territory? I think BAND is good to start off with.

No minimum. As someone in a 3 member tribe, I don't want to have to add 2 random people (and potentially ruin our RP theme) to experience something that will be very defining of the PvP server. I know you want to give incentives to forming large tribes, but when it comes to PvP, a large number is a benefit in and of itself.

If a couple of players want to try and recreate the Conan "Two Against Many" scene, why not let them?

I also see this as an opportunity to expand the Allies system. Several Homesteads or Bands taking on a large Tribe seems like an epic battle and perfect underdog story.


- How many control totems should be required to claim a territory? I think 4 is a good starting point, possibly 2 or 3 though due to the currently low population.

Maybe different amounts depending on the size of your tribe/alliance. Could also be based on the size or resources of the territory itself.


- How much land should a control totem claim?

If these can't be terraformed and have limited building available, I'm not sure it matters much, myself.


- How often should control totems become ‘open’?

Once a week seems about right. Then you can choose the time of the week --based on when you placed it-- best suited for your tribe to defend it. Not everyone gets normal weekend days off from work.


- For how long should control totems become ‘open’?

One or two hours --again based on when it was placed, to accommodate players with unusual schedules-- seems fair. When clicking on a control totem it should tell you exactly when it will next be open so attackers can schedule for it.

Also, it should not be possible to place within that time span before maintenance, or some people will exploit that shortened time to defend each week. Thinking about it, same goes for after maintenance to cover patch days.


- Should control totem’s alternate being open, or should all of them be open at one time?

Either way seems okay, but if it alternates, the total amount of time should remain the same. Prolonged battles each week would feel like a chore to most players.


- Would you like to see the controlling tribe set a territory to Safe or PvP? Or would you like to see controlled territories always be set to PvP? (Regardless, while control totems are open the entire territory would be open to PvP).

Since the server is currently open world PvP, I don't personally care either way. However, a lot of people are hoping to attract more players from the PvE server. In which case, having safe zones they can claim will give more people a reason to play on this server.

I think an even better idea would be setting the danger level --complete with the new PvP rules you mentioned for each type. Tribes in the territory would get some level of increased resources from it being PvP this way, but not as much as the controlling tribe. This also gives different levels of PvP that can be set. It could be interesting to see how the danger levels would shift from the choices of the player base.

Ooloo
01-27-2016, 06:59 PM
Hi

I dont know why everything has to be micro managed.....have 6 random zones all around the map...random generate a 2 hr totem to flash up on the map...oh ya...you would need to implement a game map in game...2 hrs with bonus in that area, 4-6 hr cooldown then random picks a new spot...let pvp/bag loot happen during that 2 hr window. This way no one can monopolize on a zone and everyone that wants pvp and 2x bonus can go there.
You could even implement this on pve.

MrDDT
01-27-2016, 07:05 PM
Hi

I dont know why everything has to be micro managed.....have 6 random zones all around the map...random generate a 2 hr totem to flash up on the map...oh ya...you would need to implement a game map in game...2 hrs with bonus in that area, 4-6 hr cooldown then random picks a new spot...let pvp/bag loot happen during that 2 hr window. This way no one can monopolize on a zone and everyone that wants pvp and 2x bonus can go there.
You could even implement this on pve.

Because that sounds really boring and what is going to be in the "loot bag"? It sounds like very little strategy or PVP happening at all really.
Monopolizing a zone should totally be possible to skilled players. If high skilled and dedicated players PVP why shouldn't they be able to control areas in PVP?

I've heard a lot of good stuff in this thread, keep it up guys this sounds great.

xyberviri
01-28-2016, 05:54 AM
Hi

I dont know why everything has to be micro managed.....have 6 random zones all around the map...random generate a 2 hr totem to flash up on the map...oh ya...you would need to implement a game map in game...2 hrs with bonus in that area, 4-6 hr cooldown then random picks a new spot...let pvp/bag loot happen during that 2 hr window. This way no one can monopolize on a zone and everyone that wants pvp and 2x bonus can go there.
You could even implement this on pve.

That doesn't sound fun, While it does encourage some pvp, its not going to encourage smaller tribes to work together for or against an area being controlled by a larger one.

Its like when a tribe decided to put a totem on a scrap pile, people band against them. The only thing is its gets boring after a while because you literally have no other control other than just a totem safe zone so you have to camp out in the zone until they leave their little area.




On the peace server: I honestly dont think you need any bonus on the pve server, That server already allows you unrestricted access to everything. Its common practice to leave baskets on junk piles and drop what ever you cant carry into it, people freely go and pick stuff out of them and take when the owner isn't around, but rarely does anyone actually complain.

We would need to seriously up the amount and difficulty of revenants in those same zones on Peace, That server is already easy as it is, your only challenge is what little is posed by the wildlife.

Xsyon
01-28-2016, 01:16 PM
A few comments:

- I agree with having control totems 'open' during initial placement. So tribes would need to place and defend totems for an initial territory claim. Makes sense.

- I don't agree with smaller tribes being able to claim a territory with less control points. That would just allow tribes to ally during a fight and have a small tribe control an entire territory just with one control point.

- As for small tribes controlling a territory, if I allow tribes to ally and give control to the 'leading' tribe, the control could go to a smaller tribe. I think that would be ok.

- About tribes potentially setting many areas as safe: That's up to the player population both to establish the zones as they want and for other tribes to contest them.

- I agree with allowing tribes to set when their territory becomes 'open'. They would still be required to set this at least once per week.


Imagine a territory has 3 guilds leaving there. what happens if all 3 tribes decide to put each one its own 4 control totems? how is then the territory owner decided?
First tribe to place and defend all 4 totems would claim the territory.


Wouldn't it be better if each territory, by default, had its own and single 20x20 area with 4 totems and it is that area the one that must be fought to control it? So that it is not the tribes who put the totems, but they are part of the territory already.
Possibly, but it would more work for me and I think players are more familiar with the details of the terrain than I am. I'm trying to find a solution that players want and that is feasible for me to implement without too much time and trouble.

Thanks for all the feedback and keep it coming. I'm going to be concentrated on code for the next few weeks but this thread will be kept open and all points of view are welcome!

Ooloo
01-28-2016, 02:23 PM
Hi

To clarify 2 points in my origional post.

1) its bag loot not loot bag, ie: no full loot but only the loot that they have in thier bag on them.

2) being skilled in pvp ie: good knowledge of the combat system,good gear vs a new player who has diddly squat along with the ability to control an area that once won , no one else could harvest there is to me equal to a cash cow in other games...by just keeping the area open to all but the area is small then a little guy could sneak in and get some stuff now and then.

dont get me wrong cause i like the defend stuff pvp...but all other games ive played its the same guild or people who allways win and to the rest you show them the road...I can count on one hand the amount of active or semi active players who could always win and i bet they always will if this is implemented this way.

as a last comment tho...dont always bash a lesser idea and make those people feel like they know nothing.

Wrath_Hobo
01-28-2016, 03:08 PM
I dont play on the war server yet but after reading some stuff on here i think a cool idea would be to set up a zone that gives you access to rare recources if you hold. Itd start off as like a 50x50 empty plot and as different tribes own the place it they add more defenses and personality to it. it could be like other people have said twice a week which gives more opportunity to other tribes to take advantage of the recources but enough to time to get what you can out of it for the reigning tribe. utilizing that 1-2 hour invasion window on those two days allows for other tribes to team up or plan attacks and I feel would allow pvp to be centralized without negatively impacting preexisting tribes' plots of lands. Something like that would be cool on the pve server which would be like those server wide pvp events in WoW or ESO only not as often. Essentially like Wintergrasp was in WotLK in World of Warcraft.

xyberviri
01-29-2016, 05:54 AM
by just keeping the area open to all but the area is small then a little guy could sneak in and get some stuff now and then.

dont get me wrong cause i like the defend stuff pvp...but all other games ive played its the same guild or people who allways win and to the rest you show them the road...I can count on one hand the amount of active or semi active players who could always win and i bet they always will if this is implemented this way.

While i can see were the concern is, i disagree that its a problem. Active players/tribes should be rewarded over semi to non active players.

A counter argument is we can already today monopolize resources though totems and denial of access.

if a 80 member tribe decided to setup on a scrap pile you can't pull resources or cut down trees, plain and simple.

Personally, i do not have a problem with that. But I think is see some potential for what Ooloo is concerned with, i'd be in your shoes.

The solution to this is:

-Make whatever bonuses apply to a zone apply to everyone while its in conflict. Then while the defenders and attackers are busy with each other. Every other player that has no interest in capturing the zone can rush in and pick and harvest till the zone is no longer contested(or until what ever upkeep is paid runs out). This would add another element that would require the defenders to choose between defending the capture points or denial of access.

Then people even people that have no intention of capturing the zone still have something to win by attending and generally causing havoc. Yes you would get squatters that camp out on the edge of the zone, but i imagine that the neighboring zones would be medium danger. Implying that pvp would be active in those all the time.

whiteskies
02-08-2016, 02:15 AM
one thing that I see a lot of people looking at is the ability to change the zone from open pvp to safe... this is the war server for a reason. Something that hasn't been voiced is keeping the control totems available for destruction at any time. to that point though the destruction of a totem should take an extended amount of time or be under "duress" for a period of 24 hours. If you made it were it took an hour to create the control totem and then another 24 hours to be able to build or terraform the area. and only having 1 totem in que to be built at a time and only receiving the control of an area upon having 4 control totem up. It would open for a very entertaining objective. The lower danger areas wouldn't be messed with as often and the more prized areas would be a warzone of chaos. as for the minimum area a control point has I think 100m would be ok, 50 is just a bit too small and really too easy to get into no matter how its built. A high resource cost for upkeep is a must as well and should scale as the totems increase, also to that point I don't think there should be a capped number of totems as long as you could afford it I think any tribe should be able to set as many as they like this makes for a good defensive strategy as well as a good "gold dump".
I could care less the tribe size minimum, if you want to be an army of one you better be a bad a**.

MrDDT
02-08-2016, 11:28 AM
I can get down with that whiteskies, also removing the setting of 5 tribe min also cuts out some exploits with totems and safeties.

I also like the idea of having the "control" totems open for attack 24/7.

xyberviri
02-09-2016, 05:13 AM
I also like the 24/7 attackable idea, that means that tribes that can really keep the zone in control would need to be either really organized or just remain localized to a zone in order to protect it.

xyberviri
02-12-2016, 07:17 AM
Has anyone looked at BlackDesertOnline? they have a Open world PvP system and also GvG(Tribe V Tribe) system as well.


The only end game goal is to control zones and trade routes and to set taxes.


That could be one incentive on war is to be able to flip a zone to what ever and to set a tax for the person controlling the zone off of any upkeep that isn't controlled by that tribe.

Anyway there is a post that has some of the bounty and karma system that game has. Most of it can't apply here but its still worth a read:

http://forum.blackdesertonline.com/index.php?/topic/8044-updated-v20-bounty-hunters-karma-and-flagging-discussion/


One idea would be to allow controlling tribes to force any totem placed in the zone a upkeep cost that can be pulled out as money or what ever. If the upkeep isn't paid the totem is blocked from any bonuses. If tied to danger level you could even say that in higher zones the totem is outright removed.


If i can control the zones PvP/PvE rules and set a tax on all of the tribes in the area that gives you a reason to want to control an area. If you can tax trade and upkeep that would give players reasons to want leadership to change

whiteskies
02-29-2016, 04:43 AM
I do like the taxing idea as well though im not to keen on the idea of it actually being able to remove a totem.. maybe lock it down so you cant add any new tribe members as well as giving no bonuses. I could see it going as far as once you have not paid your upkeep or taxes for a certain amount of time even reducing your resources gathering in half and we all know this can kill a tribe. removal is just a bit drastic and the penalties above last just a bit longer in the suffering department :)

whiteskies
02-29-2016, 04:46 AM
on a side note as I play both servers is this going to be a war server only thing? the reason I ask is you state that there will be possible items to be obtained from scavenging as what not that wouldn't normally be available so how would one gain these items on peace? or do they just miss out?

MrDDT
02-29-2016, 08:57 AM
From what he has said is that none of this would affect the PEACE server.

xyberviri
03-01-2016, 06:10 AM
I ended up buying Black Desert Online, I'll report back what ever is relevant.

theres is another hardcore mmo with death and pvp called "Chronicles of Elyria"? Its like xsyon with open world pvp and looting and even goes a step further in that players have a limited amount of life on a character and death shortens that life, ie you come back from the death a limited number of times. Not only that but you grow old and die, lives are about 1 year of real time at 30-40$ a life.

https://chroniclesofelyria.com/guide/faq

One key thing to mention from that game is the Faq literally tells you there is NO ENDGAME:



Q. What does end-game content look like?
There isn't any. No, seriously. This game is about being a part of an epic, ongoing story-line. Fill your characters' days adventuring, siegeing, farming, running a town, county, or kingdom. Spend time increasing your family's holdings and building your Noble House. And then, in your characters' final days, let them sleep the final sleep, while your soul grows young again and re-born into another character to make their own mark.

Q. Is there raiding?
No.. and yes. There are no static raid dungeons. However, world events will frequently cause big, bad, nasties that need to be dealt with to roam free or take shelter in an abandoned ruin.. Also, as players amass a large amount of wealth and hide it in their castles other, less savoury players may choose to break in and steal it. Finally, kingdoms will often go to war and siege each others' castles. All of these can and will require a varying number of players to be successful.


My points are more along the lines of: Look at other games that are successful that have similar mechanics which could easily be incorporated into xsyon. There are alot of successful "hardcore" mmos that make xsyon look pretty boring when talking about our pvp.

NorCalGooey
07-03-2016, 08:25 PM
great ideas

plus i think pvp combat will become more attractive when ranged and (possibly mounted?) combat are introduced to the game. i was watching some old darkfall videos the other day, and just wish xsyon had similar combat (minus the magic, perhaps).

being able to go 1st person and launch arrows across the sky was fun. im trying to think about what darkfall did to make PvP fun, and it was mostly the combat system and large scale of the battles. it wasn't so much that conquering cities and objectives gave bonuses, i think it was just a self fulfilling prophecy.

aka... a fun combat system + lots of grouped players + lots of alliances = big wars. and big wars are fun... especially when you have much to lose (aka full looting a shadowbear set with max quality ingredients that probably took dozens of hours to gather the materials for)

when you have something to lose, it makes the combat more filled with adrenaline, and adrenaline typically increases the fun.



anyway, as long as the combat is fun (and i think the melee is pretty decent already), all we need are pvp hotspots and a bigger population of players, and the game will become very fun for us who do enjoy doing more than simply building and crafting (i for one have had many fun PvP encounters with MrDDT and Industrial Strength)


also, i think tribes engaging in the zone control should be forced to remove their safe zone so long as they are engaged in zone control. after they stop contesting a zone, they can have their safe zone back.

MrDDT
07-04-2016, 11:17 AM
We also need a better combat system. What we currently have with desync and no ranged, or healing options. Makes combat very boring and bad.
If you die you have a 5 to 20 min time to get back into the battle, which you can die in a few hits, with no way to heal or anything. You also can't find people with tracking or anything. So either you have to know about where they are or get lucky.

To be the biggest parts of missing in Xsyon PVP and combat are these few things.

1)Combat abilities. (Stun, knockback, expose, etc)
2)Contested areas with reasons to do it. (Resource claiming for extra loot, better chance at rares etc, faster skill gain whatever)
3)Healing options. (Standing still eating and not doing anything else for 10 to 30s is not a good option, we need bandages, faith/magic healing etc)

If you add in those 3 things, the PVP and all combat would be awesome. Sure we want ranged combat, and mounts and faster travel options etc. But just those 3 things would turn combat into a very fun game and activity would jump.

Having said that, I don't think Xsyon himself can do it. I don't think he understand combat enough and it's just not a focus he is going to.

If I were doing this for PVE. I would say remove #2 and replace it with group options and harder mobs that take skills and healing/tanking. But give better loot options.

kyrana
07-05-2016, 04:27 AM
I agree, combat is very boring. I think most people who play Xsyon agree its boring. And that is why they leave. We need healing in game. It would be nice for there to be range weapons. Add a shaman skill for healing some thing...anything. I wish he would focus on combat.

NorCalGooey
07-07-2016, 12:36 AM
I agree with what Mr.DDT said about combat.

Needs more abilities.

Also a way to find people will be crucial. At this point almost going to the stage of knowing where everyone on the server is at all times. But that seems hard to implement.

I agree that adding more architecture recipes or more crafting skills wont do very much to attract new players.

Combat that is more fun would bring players though. And of course, more players in and of itself would increase the fun of combat system.

Also I know this isn't realistic but I personally would enjoy the game much more if I could terraform higher without having dirt in my pack. I remember how much fun I was having digging when the terraform bug existed where you could drop your pack and the dirt wouldn't deplete.

Mostly because I enjoy building extremely tall structures but that is out of the question even with the new architecture system (because collecting all of that dirt takes a very long time and requires moving totems to new plots of land constantly, and that being said it also would ruin the land to dig big holes everywhere)

Danfrey
07-23-2016, 01:45 AM
I like the idea of totems being open to attack 24/7 and second the idea that the combat system needs work. Personally, I would love to see aimed combat eliminated and go to an old school stats based combat. I absolutely despise twitch combat. As an old guy, my button mashing and mouse swinging skills are getting rusty.

Hero
11-14-2016, 03:44 PM
I see so many comments from people that dont play on that server lol, to me it looks like a GREAT idea and i will have great fun testing it however it is implemented.

DizzyQuizzy
01-02-2017, 05:21 PM
This is suppose to be a pvp server... why is the notion of being able to switch a controlled zone to a safe zone even being considered? There's a pve server already for those kind of people. Please make it an actual pvp server. Free for all full loot pvp, no safe zones ANYWHERE,ability to raid enemy tribe cities, asset destruction etc the game has so much potential when it comes to conquest. I just started playing but if the pvp server is just gonna be a half assed one I won't bother getting into the game deeper

MrDDT
01-02-2017, 05:53 PM
This is suppose to be a pvp server... why is the notion of being able to switch a controlled zone to a safe zone even being considered? There's a pve server already for those kind of people. Please make it an actual pvp server. Free for all full loot pvp, no safe zones ANYWHERE,ability to raid enemy tribe cities, asset destruction etc the game has so much potential when it comes to conquest. I just started playing but if the pvp server is just gonna be a half assed one I won't bother getting into the game deeper


I think there should be rules for PVP sieges 100%. I also would like to be able to build a city without people able to "glitch" into it before allowing all bins to be raided.

To me having a siege system would be awesome for PVP server. Give us ranged combat, cats and trebs, give us asset destruction, able to make repair kits for repairing walls while sieged etc etc.
To do this, he should also put a healing system in for combat. As well as a healing/repair system for buildings. Also we need ranged combat. We need skills for combat. We need lag and desync fixed for combat. We need bugs/glitches fixed for people getting into walls etc etc.

No progress on this area of the game for 7 years now.

MrDDT
05-01-2017, 11:53 AM
I can't wait for some work to be done on this project here. We've been waiting for something like this forever.

Sammie
08-27-2017, 01:06 PM
Hello So i solo and have a big tribe Hope all be abel to use SAFE so no PVP am in low zone

MrDDT
10-25-2018, 11:22 AM
A lot of people have been asking what contested system would be, so Im going to bump this for people.

legend552
10-27-2018, 08:31 AM
Yeah I absolutely love the idea of assaulting a tribal space for power over a region, and control of that region gives you benefits.