Page 4 of 4 FirstFirst ... 234
Results 31 to 35 of 35

Thread: My PvP Idea

  1. #31
    Now that Mike, I can go along with. I like the way you wove the gods in there too, definately a workable solution that opens lots of avenues for both sides of the coin.

  2. #32
    Well, have a few more

    10. To prevent swarming many tribes vs. 1 or so, lets say alliance war council decides to go to war with x tribes. Each tribe has to pay a tribute of 1 unit. Defending tribe now have options: defend alone and they are required to pay only 1 units of tribute. If defending tribe decides to bring y allies to defend, each defending tribe also has to pay 1 unit of tribute. So if alliance of 5 tribes attacks, and defending tribe decides to defend alone, reward is small, but also risk is small for attackers. The more even number of tribes, more even risk/reward.

    11. Tribute would be paid in custom "tribute bundle" which every crafting profession would get as a pattern, require master crafter, and would require similar amount of materials. When tribe which successfuly attacks/defends receive opponents "tribute bundle" they can deconstruct it and receive materials that went in producing "tribute bundle"

  3. #33
    Heh, great ideas rolling now. This is what I like to see, not complaints, ideas for improvement.

    I like the War Totem idea, and as stated, could be the in game "switch" for allowing to go to war. Would probably need a minimum number of players in the tribe, like 20 or 30, as in, whatever the point of membership is that changes the Tribe zone to be a "Town" zone. Also must keep that minimum number of members to keep the "War Totem." This would prevent anyone from just forming a temporary tribe just to make the War Totem for "temporary" PvP when they want it.

    The "God's Tribute Bundle", hmm, not sure here. As in, Jordi has mentioned in the past he wanted to allow the Tribes to go in one of two paths eventually. As in, a path towards Faith and the Gods, the other being Technology. Don't think this idea is going to work.

    Finally, I'm also more then favorable of many of the ideas here, for those that want to participate in the PvP of the game. I am still strongly against "Forcing" PvP on anyone who doesn't wish to take part. Just because I play the way I do, doesn't mean everyone else should be forced to. That's one of the major drawbacks of many "Sandboxes" with PvP, they force the players into it. Some people just don't want it.

    Again though, risk for reward. If they don't want to PvP, that's fine, but they are taking no risk, so are out any "rewards" of PvP. That being the raiding of other tribes, or eventually Territorial conquest.

    Again though, don't force Territorial Conquest onto people. There should be no reason a 5-man tribe could have it's area taken over by a 50-man, shouldn't be allowed. However, the 5-man should be allowed to PvP, but again risk vs. reward. They cannot take part of the Conquest part, but they could go "Vulnerable" if they so wish in order to attack other Vulnerable Tribes. Though, going Vulnerable is the risk they take to be taken over.

    I'm worried though this might get exploited. That a 50 man Tribe would create a small 5 man Tribe, claim an area, and just set it up to go destroy them, to take the land. It's one reason I'm still iffy about the Territorial Conquest stuff, easily exploited by the bigger tribes (that includes mine, the Regulators by the way). Is why I like the suggestion of the only "Reward" for beating somenoe in this fashion, is not their "Land," but what they have on it. The bins/resources, anything you could carry pretty much.

  4. #34
    I agree on the land issue. Personally dont like the idea of the plot being taken by force. Sure, if your at war with another tribe and you can't keep a fish on your plot to survive on (being raided daily) then you might want to concider moving your tribal lands (and by doing this conceed your land to conquest). But the idea that everything you worked for, all of it, including the land itself being able to be taken in a single minute just doesn't sit well with me. The challenge of rebuilding after a war is fine if I choose to stay where i am given the recent loss of everything. But the reason for leaving my plot behind should be based on my belief that I am in too much of harms way to stay anymore, not becuase 20 guys ran onto my homestead and knocked my totem down when I was sleeping.

    And you right on one thing Will and Mike, there has to be some way to balance the tribal sizes in warfare otherwise the smaller ones wont stand a chance and will eventually just leave Xsyon behind. I know realism says that 'of course a huge tribe should be able to take out all enemies in a world conquest fashion' and I'm not arguing that point at all. But, if you go that route by design, in 6 months time you will have 3-5 huge tribes fighting for control of Xsyon and nobody else left. I'm pretty sure that isnt Jordi's vision of the future.

    Oh and on the tribute thing, nothing to say the tribute has to be to gods, it could be an 'upkeep' for maintenance on the technology side as well. Both can have the same material/craft skill cost involved, just presented in a different manner. BUT, as each tribe choses the TYPE of tribute/maintenance they use for thier war totem, then they shift thier tribe more in that particular direction. One pushing more towards technology, and paying a maintenance fee, would eventually move enough towards that goal to get new recipes based on the technology side. I dont see why there can't be something added later to our tribal totems to include recipes learned by our 'tribe' which we as members can learn. This could also be used for that reward vs risk your talking about Will. A tribe that consistantly triumphs in PvP conquest might get new recipes at thier totem for weapon/armor advancements, or a tribe that consistantly defends thier land might get new architecture defensive structures.

  5. #35
    Quote Originally Posted by willbonney View Post
    I like the War Totem idea, and as stated, could be the in game "switch" for allowing to go to war. Would probably need a minimum number of players in the tribe, like 20 or 30, as in, whatever the point of membership is that changes the Tribe zone to be a "Town" zone. Also must keep that minimum number of members to keep the "War Totem." This would prevent anyone from just forming a temporary tribe just to make the War Totem for "temporary" PvP when they want it.
    Well, building a war totem as i see it should be process that is easily interrupted and takes a while (do x actions in y amount of time). That would be the reason why tribes without fully built forts and defences would have miniscule chance of finishing the totem, as they could not effectively defend the war totem while its been built.

    Quote Originally Posted by willbonney View Post
    The "God's Tribute Bundle", hmm, not sure here. As in, Jordi has mentioned in the past he wanted to allow the Tribes to go in one of two paths eventually. As in, a path towards Faith and the Gods, the other being Technology. Don't think this idea is going to work.
    Well, some form of payment for both sides, as river said, it would be maintanence for tech tribes.


    Quote Originally Posted by willbonney View Post
    Finally, I'm also more then favorable of many of the ideas here, for those that want to participate in the PvP of the game. I am still strongly against "Forcing" PvP on anyone who doesn't wish to take part. Just because I play the way I do, doesn't mean everyone else should be forced to. That's one of the major drawbacks of many "Sandboxes" with PvP, they force the players into it. Some people just don't want it.
    Well, making "tribute bundle" and not actively defending would be considered tribute to attacking tribe and avoiding PvP. More like "opting out of PvP by paying tribute". Defend only if you have a chance of winning and claiming attackers tribute bundle. Or for fun of it.

    Quote Originally Posted by willbonney View Post
    Again though, risk for reward. If they don't want to PvP, that's fine, but they are taking no risk, so are out any "rewards" of PvP. That being the raiding of other tribes, or eventually Territorial conquest.
    Territorial conquest is whole different can of worms. It should be considered very carefully, personally i would like to see it under very rare/specific conditions.

    Quote Originally Posted by willbonney View Post
    Again though, don't force Territorial Conquest onto people. There should be no reason a 5-man tribe could have it's area taken over by a 50-man, shouldn't be allowed. However, the 5-man should be allowed to PvP, but again risk vs. reward. They cannot take part of the Conquest part, but they could go "Vulnerable" if they so wish in order to attack other Vulnerable Tribes. Though, going Vulnerable is the risk they take to be taken over.
    Pretty sure that not forcing it is the key. Game-world would be very dull without soloers/small tribes.

    Quote Originally Posted by willbonney View Post
    I'm worried though this might get exploited. That a 50 man Tribe would create a small 5 man Tribe, claim an area, and just set it up to go destroy them, to take the land. It's one reason I'm still iffy about the Territorial Conquest stuff, easily exploited by the bigger tribes (that includes mine, the Regulators by the way). Is why I like the suggestion of the only "Reward" for beating somenoe in this fashion, is not their "Land," but what they have on it. The bins/resources, anything you could carry pretty much.
    Well, im more for "tribute bundle" solution than pillage. Only if defending tribe cant make "tribute bundle" attacking tribe is allowed to pillage defending tribe's land directly. But if they cant make "tributr bundle", prolly theres nothing worthy of pillaging in the first place.

    Ther reason is: big tribes towns should be safest places in Xsyon, big walls, heavy defences and such. Homesteads/small tribes would be easily "pillagable", which would create incentive for solo/small tribes to keep their stuff in towns, making arrangements with town tribe for safe-keeping. Inspiration drawn is from history, areas would have big fortified towns, and if pillage/war started where did people from surrounding areas run to for shelter - fortified towns. It would also create incentive for solo/small tribes to defend cities - their stuff is in there too. The system would balance itself, if some town tribe charges/demands too much for "safe-keeping" they would turn to tribe with best conditions, so no tribe could exploit this as it would lose lot of support. 10 5-man tribes and 10 soloers=60 potential people more for defence of town.
    Another reason for easy pillaging of homesteads/small tribes is preventing big tribes to just create homesteads/small tribes where they could keep their valuable stuff, safe and away from their main town. Of course, they can risk it, but if another tribe finds out - its easy loot.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •