Are contested totems the best way for land control

[orious13]

Once they add gates there will be little to no reason to have restricted zones of safety. I still think there will be no safe zones (maybe for Guide towns?), but gates allow "for those to remain safety" if they want. Maybe alignment will protect them from some sort of war.

The vision of Jooky's game as explained through numerous outlets is not simple nor is it complete. This is why "limited safe zone...better resources outside...etc" is just a thin walled circle.

I've read countless things stating warfare (later) and pvp choice -> friendly fighting where loot isn't so fully taken and more readily available than good vs evil fighting where loot is more fully free. He's envisioned evil players being "monsters" that as the lore suggests means that their only motivation is to attack is to destroy or to cause chaos. This just relies on a few things: an alignment that once soiled is difficult to regain, but easy to soil. Evil players will be prone to destruction...good or neutral might not be. This is pretty simple, but pvp people do not want it (I'm a centrist) and it WILL be exploited by them at the least.

Everything that I have read (interviews previous updates) points to a warfare system that the main war loving people would rather change. I mean seriously type in xsyon interview in google and read the first three top choices. It seems to me that while the ability to destroy will be available to some extent, it is probably not what the destroyers are really wanting.

I agree but I would like to see your term 'claimed' be something you do, not something the game does for you. To claim something all you need to do is say it's yours then back that statement up. You don't need a cattleshute mechanism.

This is exactly what expansion totems could do.

[Jadzia]

Still not seeing where he said that, got a link? Or all these priv emails that you wont show?

See it wasnt going to be an option, it was going to be turned off at first then allow people to fight once people could defend themselves. Sound familiar? Want me to link the posts again?

I think you are confused is all. Not understanding that it was going to end after Prelude. But after I seen I was gone for a while I see this post he made back in March. Clearly things have changed.

These were FAQ answers.

I'm not confused. You are talking about safe zones, which were supposed to be replaced by player-built structures after Prelude. I'm talking about sieging, taking over other tribes' areas which has always been planned as optional.

All those link you posted were about warfare, but not the conditions of warfare. If I say that there will be jumping in a game that doesn't mean that everyone will be forced to jump. I wanted to know the conditions so I asked them. You thought that it will be mandatory, but it was only something you assumed, and you were wrong.

But check that Xsyon Update Archive thread again, now the 4th of March update. Jordi tells there that sieging isn't part of his original game design, he originally planned only contest over resources.

[Trenchfoot]

It seems to me that while the ability to destroy will be available to some extent, it is probably not what the destroyers are really wanting.

This is where this game will break ground or not. It's a matter of how much player freedom will be allowed.

The devs should provide us with tools to make the game what we want it to be, not catch-all mechanisms (chutes and ladders).

[MrDDT]

These were FAQ answers.

I'm not confused. You are talking about safe zones, which were supposed to be replaced by player-built structures after Prelude. I'm talking about sieging, taking over other tribes' areas which has always been planned as optional.

All those link you posted were about warfare, but not the conditions of warfare. If I say that there will be jumping in a game that doesn't mean that everyone will be forced to jump. I wanted to know the conditions so I asked them. You thought that it will be mandatory, but it was only something you assumed, and you were wrong.

But check that Xsyon Update Archive thread again, now the 4th of March update. Jordi tells there that sieging isn't part of his original game design, he originally planned only contest over resources.

I dont know what word play you are trying, but totem take overs were planned since day 1 and before.

[Dubanka]

I dont know what word play you are trying, but totem take overs were planned since day 1 and before.

honestly, i'm not sure what was said 2 years ago matters...at all.

whatever the plan was, well, no plan survives the first shot fired downrange...and it's time to look at what we have and adjust it in the most expedient way possible, in a manner that brings players back to the game..because it's like worth playing.

It's funny, that with all this conflicting talk about the developer's xsyon vision, and with the infighting about who really has claim to the mantle of that vision (PVE! no PVP!) that the dev himself has just sat on the sidelines and not settled the issue.
IF there is a sign that the plan is in flux, and that the original design vision was really just a might could design framework, this is it...otherwise, why not just post a nice definitive post
re:My vision of the game, pvp, territorial control and asset capture and destruction....
no more supersecret private emails, or obtuse irc posts, just a nice brief q and a would settle the whole damned thing.

THere needs to be some element of player safety...maybe thats a couple gm run starting towns at some of the log in points. nice common safe area to craft, trade, with a no conflict zone that extended a certain radius out from it, where players could plant homestead only size tribal areas. Rare resources could only be carried on person in the safe areas and could not be dropped, only traded. all other mechanisms would be on. It's your xsyon bunny slope. sim mud hut. craft, terraform, figure out whats going on, break camp then head out into the real world to play the rest of the game...or dont and be a boon to the new player, a crafter for higher, or work as an escort for trade convoys going to and from the safe zone. Everything else goes wide open.

[MrDDT]

THere needs to be some element of player safety...maybe thats a couple gm run starting towns at some of the log in points. nice common safe area to craft, trade, with a no conflict zone that extended a certain radius out from it, where players could plant homestead only size tribal areas. Rare resources could only be carried on person in the safe areas and could not be dropped, only traded. all other mechanisms would be on. It's your xsyon bunny slope. sim mud hut. craft, terraform, figure out whats going on, break camp then head out into the real world to play the rest of the game...or dont and be a boon to the new player, a crafter for higher, or work as an escort for trade convoys going to and from the safe zone. Everything else goes wide open.

I agree with this, and Ive said as much.
Again but the current plan from the dev (Xsyon) is to allow these safe totems to be anywhere in the world placed how they choose. That is game breaking for me, and I dont see why you would as a dev want to do that. Its exploitable big time, and would make all the other PVP totems worthless.

[Book]

honestly, i'm not sure what was said 2 years ago matters...at all.

whatever the plan was, well, no plan survives the first shot fired downrange...and it's time to look at what we have and adjust it in the most expedient way possible, in a manner that brings players back to the game..because it's like worth playing.

It's funny, that with all this conflicting talk about the developer's xsyon vision, and with the infighting about who really has claim to the mantle of that vision (PVE! no PVP!) that the dev himself has just sat on the sidelines and not settled the issue.
IF there is a sign that the plan is in flux, and that the original design vision was really just a might could design framework, this is it...otherwise, why not just post a nice definitive post
re:My vision of the game, pvp, territorial control and asset capture and destruction....
no more supersecret private emails, or obtuse irc posts, just a nice brief q and a would settle the whole damned thing.

THere needs to be some element of player safety...maybe thats a couple gm run starting towns at some of the log in points. nice common safe area to craft, trade, with a no conflict zone that extended a certain radius out from it, where players could plant homestead only size tribal areas. Rare resources could only be carried on person in the safe areas and could not be dropped, only traded. all other mechanisms would be on. It's your xsyon bunny slope. sim mud hut. craft, terraform, figure out whats going on, break camp then head out into the real world to play the rest of the game...or dont and be a boon to the new player, a crafter for higher, or work as an escort for trade convoys going to and from the safe zone. Everything else goes wide open.

You're putting the pve element in what Trenchfoot dubbed the "smoker's lounge." Though he was talking about pvp... which doesn't belong in the smoker's lounge either obviously.

Other ideas have been put forth that wouldn't call for a smoker's lounge at all.

The only win here is a compromise in good faith, not one that ridicules with notions of mud huts and bunny slopes.

@MrDDT: again, there have been ideas put forth that wouldn't involve what you're suggesting.

[Dubanka]

You're putting the pve element in what Trenchfoot dubbed the "smoker's lounge." Though he was talking about pvp... which doesn't belong in the smoker's lounge either obviously.

Other ideas have been put forth that wouldn't call for a smoker's lounge at all.

The only win here is a compromise in good faith, not one that ridicules with notions of mud huts and bunny slopes.

@MrDDT: again, there have been ideas put forth that wouldn't involve what you're suggesting.

I am absolutely not. the PVE element is of huge importance throughout the gameworld. It is incorporated at every level of tribal development. What is in the smoking lounge, is the no risk pve world.

and to be clear: There is no such thing as a compromise. Either pvp, crafting, resources and territorial control (PCR&T) are integral components of a game system or they aren't.
My position, and i think i represent a majority here, is that the PCR&T is a cycle that needs to be left in tact. Players can determine how much they want to be involved in any single part of the system. Tribes can determine how much they want to be involved in the system. Only one thing makes the system completely not work...the ability for a group to opt out of it. The exploit avenues are just too large, the gameplay issues too many, a split system is not a system.

SO yes. I support a safety net for new guilds, or for guilds to have as a fall back point if they come up on the losing side of a asset spat one too many times. This safety net should be small. It should be designed to introduce gameplay mechanics to new players, and provide a neutral area for guilds to trade and negotiate. It should also be designed to usher players into the larger world, to compete for the larger rewards...this is why it's the bunny slope...bunny slopes introduce new skiers to skiing...it wouldnt be kinda or safe to shove a novice off a black diamond run...MOST WOULD NEVER SKI AGAIN. so you start them on the bunny where they learn to turn and most importantly stop, in a controlled and mostly risk free environment. So, in xsyon we want to let them figure out what to do, explore the wide world from a nice safe spot, then when they feel they're ready they can embark on a larger game...OR they can opt not to and refine whatever skills they want from within the safet of the starting area...they just would not be able to play with all the toys (ie rare stuff) from within that locale.

Sorry, but that is really the only way 'safe' works.

[JCatano]

No, its not me who want to change it. I'm fine with the system Jordi plans, the opt-out warfare. I don't want to change it, do you ?

He has always planned the game to be this way. Warfare over resources, not over the cities. Now that there are players who wants to fight over the cities too he is willing to give an option for that, but not forcing it on everybody. Ok, let's not change it.

Can architecture structures be damaged by other players at any time?

As the game evolves yes. This won't be in for a while as towns are planned as safe zones in the Prelude, though I am considered tribes to allow to choose if they want to be warring tribes during the Prelude. Warring tribes will be able to attack each other.

---

After prelude- will tribes be able to conquer other tribe lands by destroying their totem?

Yes. How this will work is not fully decided yet. Since we first started working on Xsyon, many games have come out with some good ideas for this type of warfare. We're going to spend some time checking these out before we implement what we think is the best solution.

---

Always? Do I need to date those answers for you? He changed it once. It's time to change it back to the original idea.

[Book]

I am absolutely not. the PVE element is of huge importance throughout the gameworld. It is incorporated at every level of tribal development. What is in the smoking lounge, is the no risk pve world.

and to be clear: There is no such thing as a compromise. Either pvp, crafting, resources and territorial control (PCR&T) are integral components of a game system or they aren't.
My position, and i think i represent a majority here, is that the PCR&T is a cycle that needs to be left in tact. Players can determine how much they want to be involved in any single part of the system. Tribes can determine how much they want to be involved in the system. Only one thing makes the system completely not work...the ability for a group to opt out of it. The exploit avenues are just too large, the gameplay issues too many, a split system is not a system.

SO yes. I support a safety net for new guilds, or for guilds to have as a fall back point if they come up on the losing side of a asset spat one too many times. This safety net should be small. It should be designed to introduce gameplay mechanics to new players, and provide a neutral area for guilds to trade and negotiate. It should also be designed to usher players into the larger world, to compete for the larger rewards...this is why it's the bunny slope...bunny slopes introduce new skiers to skiing...it wouldnt be kinda or safe to shove a novice off a black diamond run...MOST WOULD NEVER SKI AGAIN. so you start them on the bunny where they learn to turn and most importantly stop, in a controlled and mostly risk free environment. So, in xsyon we want to let them figure out what to do, explore the wide world from a nice safe spot, then when they feel they're ready they can embark on a larger game...OR they can opt not to and refine whatever skills they want from within the safet of the starting area...they just would not be able to play with all the toys (ie rare stuff) from within that locale.

Sorry, but that is really the only way 'safe' works.

Okay, thanks. I really appreciate you clearing that up for me. I think we're actually kind of saying the same thing, I was just envisioning a larger safe area with maybe the safe area contributing to the non-safe area a bit more.

Might be a deal-breaker for what you're envisioning though... I'm not married to it, more like dating the idea.