Destroying Resources a Legitimate Tactic?

[wolfmoonstrike]

I think the best solution might be a simple one.

Make it so players can't destroy a stump unless its on your land (or tribe's land). So it'll still allow some for some form of "dickory" but after awhile it'll just be too much of a pain in the ass to keep chopping down a tree every respawn cycle for most people.

[Daeish]

I agree with wolfmoon, that this would be a good solution.

Either that, or make trees regrow even without the stump.

[mrcalhou]

Yes, I do think it's a viable tactic. No, I do not think that trees should be able to be cut down so quickly.

[Liil]

I agree with Wolfmoonstrike also - we set up next to a forest deliberately so we would have a wood resource close by. we now have no wood at all anywhere near to our camp due to the spitefulness of other people and the fact that they removed an entire forest overnight. We now need the ability to re-grow said trees or make it so that this cannot continue happen in the future to other tribes.

[Bluebizzer]

Definitely think it needs to be made a lot harder for 1 person to destroy such a large area as they can now. No reason to stop the ability to do it all together imo, but it should be a considerable task to totally destroy everything, giving people an ample chance to try and stop them.

[madea]

And yet more complications seem to arise:

1) "Make it so players can't destroy a stump unless its on your land (or tribe's land)" - The problem here is, as Liil said, we set up next to a forest, not in the forest. Technically, there aren't any trees on "our" land.

2) "No, I do not think that trees should be able to be cut down so quickly." - If they make it hard for people to cut down trees for "PvP" purposes, they make it equally hard for people who need those resources to achieve. It's not really a deterrent.

Further, along those lines, making it prohibitively long to destroy a stump might be an acceptable/possible partial deterrent (if you've ever tried to dig up a stump you know how much that sucks), but since the only thing being claimed there is time it has limited use.

3) "but it should be a considerable task to totally destroy everything, giving people an ample chance to try and stop them. - The problem here is that there is no way to "stop" them. You can drive them off temporarily, but considering that unless a tribe is able to field a watch 24 hours a day, all anyone has to do is wait until off hours before doing what they want to do. Wash, rinse, repeat and it's really only a minor end run for the ones doing it while the people who legitimately want to gather those resources find it even harder to do so. (Resources gathering is -already - hard)

Unless, of course, you meant the destruction of resources part, by which I agree... you wouldn't be able to get rid of a forest full of trees that quickly.



Also, if I understand it correctly, trees already regrow without the stump just randomly. While I'm all for such a thing (maybe just an increased respawn timer), and obviously the solution needs to be a combination sort of thing, the bottom line is motivation. Again, my major concern is that no mechanic rewards PVPers (by letting them engage in behavior they like with little to no effort) while leaving other players vulnerable. And while I'm enjoying the crafting/resourcing/building part of Xsyon, if I just get to be a moving target for PvPers to practice on while doing so, my enthusiasm for the game is seriously dampened.

[jumpshot]

I think the best solution might be a simple one.

Make it so players can't destroy a stump unless its on your land (or tribe's land). So it'll still allow some for some form of "dickory" but after awhile it'll just be too much of a pain in the ass to keep chopping down a tree every respawn cycle for most people.

This is honestly a pretty damn good idea.

And yet more complications seem to arise:

1) "Make it so players can't destroy a stump unless its on your land (or tribe's land)" - The problem here is, as Liil said, we set up next to a forest, not in the forest. Technically, there aren't any trees on "our" land.

I think you misread his idea. If its not on anyones land it couldn't be detroyed, like Rocks. Thus the stumps would be safe.



I've heard that trees will regrow nearby if the stumps are destroyed, just not ON the stumps like if they aren't destroyed. Could be the fix is already in place, we'll find out after the grow cycle.

[Chile]

I think things in tribal areas should be safe including stumps until of course they lift the safe zones and sieges are allowed.

On the other hand, if you go off your tribal land and say, cut down a tree for logs those logs are now open for anyone to do anything with. I don't think that "safe" should be extended for an example, that if you cut down a tree outside your safe zone only you or your tribe can access those logs, this doesn't happen in real life. This includes taking said logs or destroying said logs. This also teaches a lesson that, if you harvest outside your tribal safe zone one needs to move those resources inside your tribe borders ASAP.

It is just like PvP. You are safe in your tribal area, you are not safe outside. The same goes for resources. We all learned this in beta over the last year. (If you weren't in early beta, you are learning this now)

Remember, this is an open sandbox game and there are many was for one to play it, to include brigands, peaceful tribes, solo play (to an extent), warring tribes... hence the good, neutral and evil standings.

In saying this I am sure the devs are trying to make this world as real as possible to include usage of the resources like, trees, animals, junk piles etc., real and functional as possible. What happens in the real world when all the animals are killed off? Now I understand some balance to a point here, but this isn't a a controlled theme park MMO.

I am sure what is coming next is that people will complain that the junk piles are gone in their area, the tribe next to them is to large and has to many people to collect resources, there's not enough fish, the animals can't re-spawn/grow fast enough, distance to travel to gather stuff is to far, why isn't there a Walmart... it will happen. I haven't even started on the griefing and PvP aspects.

This is not a caring and sharing game. It's a post apocalyptic open sandbox MMO with basic rules and guidelines to include taking or destroying of resources, making enemies or allies, etc.. These resources are a precious commodity so use them wisely. Look at our real world around us. It you are expecting to go camping, build your fire, set up some tents, sing kumbaya and not be bothered... this is the wrong game for you.

[iskald4400]

I think things in tribal areas should be safe including stumps until of course they lift the safe zones and sieges are allowed.

On the other hand, if you go off your tribal land and say, cut down a tree for logs those logs are now open for anyone to do anything with.

I totally agree. But the OP was talking not of logs but of tree stumps being destroyed, and asking if that was working as intended. QQing about lost logs would be silly.

[warmslumbers13]

I think things in tribal areas should be safe including stumps until of course they lift the safe zones and sieges are allowed.

On the other hand, if you go off your tribal land and say, cut down a tree for logs those logs are now open for anyone to do anything with. I don't think that "safe" should be extended for an example, that if you cut down a tree outside your safe zone only you or your tribe can access those logs, this doesn't happen in real life. This includes taking said logs or destroying said logs. This also teaches a lesson that, if you harvest outside your tribal safe zone one needs to move those resources inside your tribe borders ASAP.

It is just like PvP. You are safe in your tribal area, you are not safe outside. The same goes for resources. We all learned this in beta over the last year. (If you weren't in early beta, you are learning this now)

Remember, this is an open sandbox game and there are many was for one to play it, to include brigands, peaceful tribes, solo play (to an extent), warring tribes... hence the good, neutral and evil standings.

In saying this I am sure the devs are trying to make this world as real as possible to include usage of the resources like, trees, animals, junk piles etc., real and functional as possible. What happens in the real world when all the animals are killed off? Now I understand some balance to a point here, but this isn't a a controlled theme park MMO.

I am sure what is coming next is that people will complain that the junk piles are gone in their area, the tribe next to them is to large and has to many people to collect resources, there's not enough fish, the animals can't re-spawn/grow fast enough, distance to travel to gather stuff is to far, why isn't there a Walmart... it will happen. I haven't even started on the griefing and PvP aspects.

This is not a caring and sharing game. It's a post apocalyptic open sandbox MMO with basic rules and guidelines to include taking or destroying of resources, making enemies or allies, etc.. These resources are a precious commodity so use them wisely. Look at our real world around us. It you are expecting to go camping, build your fire, set up some tents, sing kumbaya and not be bothered... this is the wrong game for you.

agree +1 , seriously people complained about sand not being next to them, and now there are complaining about trees.. go on a logging expedition and make it like a fun tribe event.