My Vision of Combat for Xsyon

[KeithStone]

This is my vision of how combat should work in Xsyon. (After Prelude Of Course)

1. People are allowed to pvp anywhere, including inside tribe territory with consequences based on your PK actions. You go evil for killing non-evil characters, which allows anyone to kill you without losing alignment status. Becoming a good character after becoming an evil character should be a tedious chore.

2. Tribe territories can be sieged and taken from the owner, which means a tribe would be able to own more than 1 territory through seiging, Tribes would have a max tribe population and the amount of tribe territories you could own would be based on your tribes popultion. (Both would force a limiting factor to how many you can own) Upkeep to owning more than 1 tribe territory should be more expensive the more territories you own, also the more alliances that are formed by tribes with owned territories should also increase upkeep costs. This would help limit the size a tribe/alliance could get. The "upkeep costs" is unknown to me at this time for what that would be.

3. Tribe structures cannot be destroyed unless it's during a siege, all structures would be vulnerable to damage only by expensive and very rare siege equipement. It would be an advantage to the attacking tribe not to damage to much because it will need to be repaired and or rebuilt. Wars are not optional, and sieges are not optional. Also, if you initiate a seige then you must wager your tribe territory if you lose the siege. You cannot siege another tribe unless you have the required amount of population to own multiple territories.

4. Settlements should be restricted to certain areas and are not allowed to be taken or sieged by other players. However you cannot own a settlement and be in a tribe at the same time. Also, if your account goes unsubbed your totem is destroyed and your plot is open to be claimed by someone else, no exceptions.

5. Getting into what Good, Evil, and Neutral tribes and players can or cannot do gives me a headache.

6. Good players/tribes should be rewarded for killing evil player/tribes.

7. Neutral Players/tribes need to have some kind of drawback for not being good, but at the same time there needs to be a reason why you would want to be neutral vs good. This one is very confusing to me, I can't seem to figure out the disadvantage of being neutral or advantage as well.

8. Evil players/tribes needs to have major consequence.

9. You cannot ally a tribe of your allies enemies, and you cannot initiate a siege against your allies.

I may revise this as I think of anything else, however I'm interested in what the rest of you have invisioned.

I'm not going to debate with anyone as to why I think that it should be this way, that's not the point of the thread. I'm just curious to see what everyone else has envisioned Xsyon to be.

Also, please note that my vision is based on my interpretation of what I have understood that the devs are trying to do with this game.

I made a suggestion to Jooky about giving new players a 30 min - 1 hour protection when they first enter the world, and I really hope he can do this. Also, there has been another suggestion about helping new players by making their starting tools non-lootable, (they should still break down beyond repair like every other tool) and this sounds really good too.

[ifireallymust]

I like 1.

2. could result in one massive hoovering zerg tribe that sucks up every other tribe's territory and eventually makes it pointless to join any other tribe but theirs.

3. A couple sieges close together, and everything around a tribal area will be stripped bare for rebuilding.

4. Me too.

5. That could go with a bounty system too, to let neutrals participate in the form of totem quests.

6. Headache, incoming.

7. Are you saying good and neutral players can't full loot evil ones but evil ones can full loot good and neutral?

[KeithStone]

7. Are you saying good and neutral players can't full loot evil ones but evil ones can full loot good and neutral?

I don't want to get into it to much as to what good/evil/neutral players should be able to do, but I based that off a post I read that explains what each can do. What confused me the most about it is the difference between what being neutral did or didn't do for your tribe.

I really need to find the post again, if someone knows which post I'm talking about please link it.

Also, I redid #2, so please read it again.

[ifireallymust]

Your change to #2 would simply change "one massive hoovering zerg tribe that sucks up every other tribe's territory etc. etc." to "one massive hoovering zerg tribal alliance that sucks up every other tribe's territory etc etc".

[KeithStone]

Your change to #2 would simply change "one massive hoovering zerg tribe that sucks up every other tribe's territory etc. etc." to "one massive hoovering zerg tribal alliance that sucks up every other tribe's territory etc etc".

alliances have already been stated that it's coming as a built in feature, and even if it wasn't built in other tribes will ally anyway.

So, it's going to happen either way, tribes will get together and own as much as they can. What number 2 does is make it so that the more they own, the more costly it will be to a point where owning to much territory will only hurt them rather than benefit.

[Doc]

1. People are allowed to pvp anywhere, including inside tribe territory with consequences based on your PK actions. You go evil for killing non-evil characters, which allows anyone to kill you without losing alignment status. Becoming a good character after becoming an evil character should be a tedious chore.

This is closely related to 4, so unless its settled what its actually involved its pointless to discuss about it.

2. Tribe territories can be sieged and taken from the owner, which means a tribe would be able to own more than 1 territory through seiging, Tribes would have a max tribe population and the amount of tribe territories you could own would be based on your tribes popultion. (Both would force a limiting factor to how many you can own) Upkeep to owning more than 1 tribe territory should be more expensive the more territories you own, also the more alliances that are formed by tribes with owned territories should also increase upkeep costs. This would help limit the size a tribe/alliance could get. The "upkeep costs" is unknown to me at this time for what that would be.

Umm, if 3 (first 3) is ingame then you cant really call it a "siege", more likely "kill the totem surrounded by ghost structures".

3. Tribe structures should be able to be destroyed at any time even during non seiges, however they can be reparied by adding the required materials back to the structure. For example if the structure is destroyed then it turns back into the ghost template. Structures should only be able to be destroyed by very expensive, slow moving siege equipment.

Do you think anyone sane would actually build anything? Do you think people wake up in the morning and say to themselves "ill just haul bunch of materials from who knows what distance, make me an easy target, just to reapir structures that were destroyed while i was sleeping, just so they could be destroyed again"? Sounds like Sisuphos, and hislittle setup. And yah, he was a myth, so are all the people that would actually do this.

3. Settlements should be restricted to certain areas and are not allowed to be taken or sieged by other players. However you cannot own a settlement and be in a tribe at the same time.

So, we have safe zones, prepare to be flamed by those who dont want any safe zones whatsoever cause it "interferes with their PvP".

4. Getting into what Good, Evil, and Neutral tribes and players can or cannot do gives me a headache.

Severe negatives for being evil and bonuses for being good, thats setup that works, otherwise you can drop whole alignment system cause its redundunt.

5. Good players/tribes should be rewarded for killing evil player/tribes.

Rewarded by whom or what exactly?

6. Neutral Players/tribes need to have some kind of drawback for not being good, but at the same time there needs to be a reason why you would want to be neutral vs good. This one is very confusing to me, I can't seem to figure out the disadvantage of being neutral or advantage as well.

Neutrals dont have negatives that evil has, but dont have positives that good has. Neutral is neutral.

7. Evil players/tribes advantage of being evil is that they get full loot access to those they kill, however there should be no alignment restrictions for killing an evil player by a good or neutral tribe.

Speaking of advantages for evil is redundant. There should be no advatages for being evil, it should be undesirable alignment. More punishment than reward thing.

[KeithStone]

Speaking of advantages for evil is redundant. There should be no advatages for being evil, it should be undesirable alignment. More punishment than reward thing.

You convinced me to rethink #3, please take a look, I revised #8 as well.

So, we have safe zones, prepare to be flamed by those who dont want any safe zones whatsoever cause it "interferes with their PvP".

You can still be attacked on your settlement, you just can't lose it. That's why I say that it should be designated to certain areas.

Rewarded by whom or what exactly?

Talking about good tribes being rewarded, not really sure- i still can't find the post about how evil/neutral/good works.

[ifireallymust]

alliances have already been stated that it's coming as a built in feature, and even if it wasn't built in other tribes will ally anyway.

So, it's going to happen either way, tribes will get together and own as much as they can. What number 2 does is make it so that the more they own, the more costly it will be to a point where owning to much territory will only hurt them rather than benefit.

If and when that happens, there won't really be tribes at all. No independence, no conflict outside, "Hey, tribal leader A), what about working your guys up into a killing frenzy and sending them over to my place so we'll have something to do tonight?"

"Yeah, but we're allied through the alliance of the allied allies pact of Tuesday afternoon!"

"Oh, I forgot about that. So...anything good on TV tonight?"

[KeithStone]

If and when that happens, there won't really be tribes at all. No independence, no conflict outside, "Hey, tribal leader A), what about working your guys up into a killing frenzy and sending them over to my place so we'll have something to do tonight?"

"Yeah, but we're allied through the alliance of the allied allies pact of Tuesday afternoon!"

"Oh, I forgot about that. So...anything good on TV tonight?"

You made me realize there should be a #9, please read.

[Doc]

it's already stated that evil tribes/players can gank without limitation.

You convinced me to rethink #3, please take a look.

Thats more like it, attacker should have high risk for failing, and long preparation times to even start a siege. So if they do fail, they "lose" preparation time+their territory.

Many people want to just play attackers with no risk/high rewards. Imagine board game "Risk" where attacker doesnt have any risk. Game would lose a meaning.