How it should be!

[KeithStone]

- Both warring and non-warring tribes could claim resources that would be up for contest by both types of tribes

Fixed:

- Warring tribes will be able to conquer areas containing more valuable resource areas, non warring tribes would be limited to less valued resource areas.

imo this is how it should be.

Please, I don't want a flame war, but seriously there has to be a reason to be warring or people won't do it.

[Armand]

Agreed. Safety and security should carry a price, and risk should be rewarded.

[Dubanka]

Fixed:



imo this is how it should be.

Please, I don't want a flame war, but seriously there has to be a reason to be warring or people won't do it.

ill +1 this.

[orious13]

Yep.

[Jadzia]

I don't agree. If a non-warring tribe is not allowed to claim good resources they will just buy it from others and you won't be able to stop it. If they have their own claimed land you can fight it and conquer it.

[Kroom]

Right now you are right, not much to fight over. But the impression I get for future development you will have a reason… More land and resources.

Everyone is stuck dealing with the limited combat system and no tribal war functions so I don’t see why players need to be punished for a play style right now.

[Bridger]

Quoting myself from another thread so as to offer another potential option:

Second point: I've been thinking about how you would code this to make the whole good/evil thing more situational and subjective.

I've noticed that the game already allows you to flag someone as a "friend/neutral/enemy" when you transact with them. So the game has a mechanism for setting that flag and tracking it. Maybe that's the answer here? Rather than having a tribe's alignment be a matter of setting a toggle, all alignments start out as 'neutral'. Then, at some point down the road, two players from two different tribes meet. If they simply transact and go their way, both tribes retain their neutral status with respect to each other. But if one of the players attacks the other - [in a dispute over resources, for example] - the attacker's tribe is set to 'evil' with respect to the victim's tribe. (The attack would automatically set the 'friend/neutral/enemy' flag to 'enemy' for each member of the attacker's tribe with respect to the victim's tribe.) The effect of that would be that now the victim's tribe can freely attack any member of the aggressor's tribe without damage to their 'neutral' status. [And, of course, the aggressor's tribe can attack the victim's tribe.]

You could even take it a step further. You could build in a timer that would allow the aggressor's tribe's leadership to either ratify that attack or disavow it - probably by throwing the aggressor out of the tribe.

Additionally, there could be a '[x] strikes and you're out' feature. Your tribe's membership could only engage in so many aggressions before your tribe's status is set to 'evil' ('enemy') for everyone else.

Last but not least, you could give the original victim the ability to reset the aggressor's flag to neutral, if the original victim was willing - for whatever 'motivation' - to do so. At that point, everything would go back to the status quo ante.

Might that be workable?

[baka77]

/signed

This is exactly what I've been preaching in other threads this morning.

[randomt]

Fixed:
imo this is how it should be.

Please, don't want a flame war, but seriously there has to be a reason to be warring or people won't do it.

You dimwits made him cancel the plan for a server with that kind of ruleset, because of all of your crying. Live with that decision.

[KeithStone]

I don't agree. If a non-warring tribe is not allowed to claim good resources they will just buy it from others and you won't be able to stop it. If they have their own claimed land you can fight it and conquer it.

actually, yes you can!

In order to trade someone has to leave the tribe zone to initiate the trade with said goods and killing them in the interrum is how you control it.