Noone? My thread from a few days ago: http://www.xsyon.com/forum/showthrea...e-zones-and...
Noone? My thread from a few days ago: http://www.xsyon.com/forum/showthrea...e-zones-and...
Yes, you're right, this will happen. There's no way around it, it has happened in every single FFA PvP MMORPG I can think of.
There's also no way to avoid this. If you have a FFA PvP game you will have cheaters and exploiters amongst the legit players. One cannot have one without the other.
This system is already in place in the game. Neutral tribes craft items that they will either trade or give to Good/Evil tribes in return for protection or other military actions - In fact I am sure there will be many secret wars going where a neutral crafting tribe outfits and resupplies / supports a Good or Evil tribe in a war against an enemy tribe for numerous reasons. While the Pvper tribes with alts are trying to supply themselves, whole alliances of neutral tribes will be formed that can continually provide a constant stream of supplies while their secret allies can constantly war against any tribes.
You better believe there will be huge political actions in this game between tribes - broken alliances, secret ones, backstabbing, stealing, double dealing, spies, treason, its gonna happen - probably already did in beta.
I think this system already in place, is exactly what is needed for a decent balanced pvp game - I seriously doubt it will be of any benefit with so many other tribes / alliances doing it faster and better.
If you want accountability just come back in 9 months when the devs have stated that "there will be no safe zones" - the baby is in the oven
- your take is very punitive for any aggression. A successful defense is a successful defense. Winning a siege should be very difficult. You are expected to win in the defense. your proposal is designed to deter territorial disputes, except in cases where the attacker achieves a vast numerical advantage, enough to be assured of a win. bad idea. If you want to get some payback, successfully defend then bring the party to my house. To say that the defender and attacker should have the same stakes in a seige engagement is ludicrous.4. risk for attackers - defending tribe dont need to do anything but successfully defend. Win/lose conditions apply equally to both for acheving/failing their task, if attackers fail, defenders get full rights to pillage/conquer their land
in general, all i saw in that thread was a plethora of restrictions seeking to make tribal war as difficult as possible, so it happens as infrequently as possible.
in general this has very little do with the purpose of my post...this was not a general 'war' post. This was a, 'incentivizing players to make invulnerable craft towns IS A REALLY BAD IDEA'.
I wont get into theorizing tribal war mechanics, because it's pointless until the devs throw us something to chew on...then ill generate an opinion.
In this case there is plenty to chew on, and it is a very real problem that will occur with the current mechanics in play.
Honestly i don't think this will ever occur.If you want accountability just come back in 9 months when the devs have stated that "there will be no safe zones" - the baby is in the oven
I don't think certain groups in game would allow this to occur.
Even more honestly, i'm not sure that no safe zones is a good idea. Just if you're goign to be 'safe', there should be a trade off for that safety. And, there needs to be a mechanic to incentize tribes to keep their eggs in one basket, and not build a safety net.
Aaaand, we are back to sq. 1. You want reward with 0 risk. Noted. I will never support a system where attacker has nothing to lose and defender has everything to lose.
Exactly. Risk vs. reward.
Right. Continue to...rant...on stuff. Cause, atm everyone has invulnerability, so your post is either aimed for after prelude - or doesnt make any sense whatsoever.
I think people are thinking about it to much. If the Devs give the game severe item destruction, ala Eve (because a lot of things in Eve work really, really well for games that relies on emergent gameplay for content), then sieging will have enough consequences for the attacking party. The defenders would have the advantage of having Non-player operated defensive structures, like chokepoints and maybe even retalitory structures in the future.
Edit: Because the attackers would have to invest in much more fragile items to stand a chance of winning. Walls are easy and cheap to build. That awesome armor set probably isn't. Relatively speaking.