Originally Posted by
mrcalhou
It doesn't need to be all items. Actually, it'd be a bad idea to destroy all items on death. Keeping some stuff still intact would be a nice little trophey for the victor. But you can't think about one system without considering how it effects others. The economy would need items to completely leave the game to keep it going, otherwise people would become inundated with too much stuff that they'll never use, so they'll stop trading. The war-engine provides an outlet for this: If items get destroyed than crafters would have a more prominent role in the game (and let's face it, Jooki WANTS the game to focus on crafting. Having warfare helps give crafters more of a purpose. I know, I know. It seems odd to think that emphasizing warfare would also stimulate the crafters and the economy (though it really shouldn't if anyone reads up a little on how warfar has acted to stimulate technological advances and manufacturing)). But this also provides an incentive not to die. The individual doesn't, and shouldn't, want to lose their items. But, to acquire more stuff and increase their influence, tribes (and individuals) would need to conquer lands established by others and to do so they would need to build up goods to launch an attack.
The consequence of losing, is that the aggressor loses all the time that it took to acquire it, but if they win then they get more resources to build more stuff. Eventually some defender will lose. This is why I suggest having some safezones. You don't want to completely knock out a players, or a group of players, means of advancing again.
Edit: Doc: The reward for winning a defense is that you acquire some of the items of the aggressors, you maintain your facilities and infrastructure, and you obtain the knowledge that one of your competitors just lost a lot of time and resources in an unsuccessful seige.