I always get a good laugh at these so-called hardcore MMORPG "PvPers." They point and cry "carebear" simply because it pumps their ego, but at the end of the day, how "hardcore" is someone who sits in front of their PC, tab-targetting other players?

Anyway, there might be a way for both sides to be okay. If sieging tribes is ever implemented, the system should promote the annexation of smaller tribes, leaving the smaller tribe's development standing.

Tribe vs. Tribe Example:

Tribe A attacks Tribe B. B loses the war and their totem is conquered. Tribe A can then choose from a few options:

  1. Annexation - Tribe B becomes a city-state of Tribe A. Tribe A can initiate some form of taxation on Tribe B that lasts for a set amount of time.
  2. Assimilation - Tribe A requests that B assimilate into A. This initiates a vote among the members of Tribe B. If the vote passes successfully, all B members are moved into the roster of A, and the territory controlled by B is now controlled by A. Tribe B is dissolved permanently. If the vote fails, the conditions default to Annexation.
  3. Pillage - Tribe A receives a certain amount of resources from Tribe B, but B gets to keep its independence and territory. Tribe B may incur some building destruction or damage, but this only requires them to do minor rebuilding and upkeep, not a complete rebuild.


This is a rough list of options, but it gives us options and political choices.

Declaring Independence

Also, if a Tribe is conquered by another, there should be an option for the conquered tribe to initiate some kind of declaration of independence after a certain period of time. At which point a battle is fought between the two tribes. Whoever wins gets to set the terms, whether it be indepedence or continued subjugation.

Unfortunately, these systems could be easily circumvented by players abandoning Tribes and reforming them with new totems, or by creating new characters. So more thinking need to be done about that.