Are contested totems the best way for land control

[Trenchfoot]

All this talk about resources what about power and glory?

I would like the opportunity for the following scenario to be possible:

A conquering tribe is sweeping the map chewing up smaller tribes. So a group of neighboring tribes (formerly unfriendly to one another) band together to put them in their place.

Am I asking too much?

[Jadzia]

Anyone can see that making safe zones outside of the set starting ones can cause major problems in this game.

Take EVE online. If you had places where people could put a "safe zone" the ECON in EVE would be jacked up so bad.
Worse in Xsyon is its not even a full safe zone, its a "You cant attack members here but we can attack you here". Which means you step into the wrong spot and BAM you are going to die with ZERO chance of killing them because they are "SAFE". "Im touching base, you cant hurt me" is a flipping joke.

I was talking about 1 safe zone and 1 PvP zone, created by the devs not the players. An Eve like system, not the one we have now.

Dub, good post. We are back to the point that PvP and PvE can't live together....I don't see things that dark though. Eve could do it, so Xsyon has a chance too.

[Book]

In theory your position is reasonable...however in practice is just doesn't work...at least not without creating a major distinction in gameplay. In a competitive environment you can not have two groups of players playing by different rules. If you wanted to be a 'safe area tribe' you would have to rely upon warring tribes to bring you goods from those zones. Safe area tribes just could not participate in the metagame of resource capture, and control (yes you can post the jordi though quote all you want...it wont work). Once you get involved in resource competition, the resource is the drive that creates the conflict. the fights around the resource nodes create drama, which creates politics which spurs people friend and to war....because they have something to lose above and beyond the resource itself.

Any type of invulnerability for tribal areas presents an exploit possibility, muling resources on chars between tribes (ie. every 'pvp' tribe will have a peace tribe storage facility) which detracts from the whole point of pvp...which is having a point.

Was going to ask if it would help if the pathways into, and out of, the pvp zone were limited. So, if you were trying to smuggle goods into a mule peace tribe, you would need to make your way there through potential ambushes and/or player built fortresses choking the ways in. Same if you were trying to smuggle goods out of a mule peace tribe.

I don't know if that would help, but the map isn't really built with this type of thing in mind so... don't know if there's another way to implement the concept.

All this talk about resources what about power and glory?

I would like the opportunity for the following scenario to be possible:

A conquering tribe is sweeping the map chewing up smaller tribes. So a group of neighboring tribes (formerly unfriendly to one another) band together to put them in their place.

Am I asking too much?

Wouldn't imagine it's too much to ask... and you might even entice a few mercenary homesteaders to cross over to the dark side with rare resources as payment. I would probably make decent arrow-fodder for the right price.

[Dubanka]

Was going to ask if it would help if the pathways into, and out of, the pvp zone were limited. So, if you were trying to smuggle goods into a mule peace tribe, you would need to make your way there through potential ambushes and/or player built fortresses choking the ways in. Same if you were trying to smuggle goods out of a mule peace tribe.

I don't know if that would help, but the map isn't really built with this type of thing in mind so... don't know if there's another way to implement the concept.



Wouldn't imagine it's too much to ask... and you might even entice a few mercenary homesteaders to cross over to the dark side with rare resources as payment. I would probably make decent arrow-fodder for the right price.

no, it's not too much to ask, and precisely why everyone has to share risk. everybody needs to have a stake. We (vd) have been the server police. We've also been the server bad guy. There is rewarding gameplay in each.

Once upon a time I was very against asset destruction. Oddly...i was against it until it happened to me. Losing a couple months worth of work really really pissed me off. I reformed the group with about the half dozen of us that were left and swore to never again build anything we couldnt afford to lose. Next time someone tried to take our shit, the lost, and proceeded to get pounded into the ground (I stopped when their gl begged for us to stop...twas satisfying). There is no game until you've played for pinks. SOmetimes, you don't get it until you play with the right group....but once it takes hold, patty cake pvp is utterly pointless. unfortunately.

Everyone needs to have a dog in the hunt...even if it that stake is electing to doing nothing...

Dub, good post. We are back to the point that PvP and PvE can't live together....I don't see things that dark though. Eve could do it, so Xsyon has a chance too.

they not only can, they have to. you can't have pvp that means something without a pve element to give it meaning. as a player you can always choose a path that minimizes your exposure to such risk, but by that decision you will be excluding yourself from a vast portion of the game...but if your goal is to be the premier crafter of blades do you really care?

[Book]

Dubanka, I'm confused You quoted me but answered Trenchfoot... I think...

[ocoma]

I'm gonna quote myself, with some extra bolding, cause I think that some/many people may have missed this in the flurry of activity this thread is seeing...

Xsyon is not a pure pvp game and is indeed trying to be attractive to both the avid pvper as well as the pure crafter and "carebear" types. I agree that Eve's system of "mostly" safe but limited zones progressing to no security highly valuable zones is probably the best way to work that.

There is a very important point most if not all of you seem to be missing.

There are over 1600 zones and we only have access to about 110 atm. If all the lands we can build in right now end up being the equivalent of Eve's high security "safe zones" that comes out to less then 7% of the total landmass. Even then all the land not totem protected is still FFA and full loot(btw pouches and bins need to not have magical locks on them). Catering to both the pvper and carebear is a very hard balancing act.

You people are not thinking long term. 7% safezone is NOTHING so long as the rest of the land ends up having resources and content not found in the safe areas and highly sought after.

If the current lands not covered by the green mist are the only areas where safezone totems can be dropped, and if the lands currently green mist covered are developed with content that can not be found currently but is much needed/rare/sought after, and if the value of said content is increased the further away from the "safezone" you travel then you can indeed create an Eve type of layered security lands which could appease both the pvper and the carebear. This could require a reworking of current craftlines to add in resources not available atm.

I'm personally all for no safezones at all myself, and I know the rest of my tribe is as well. That said there does have to be some give and take from both sides of the fence on this issue to appeal to all gamer types. Eve has made it work and there is no reason something can't be implemented here that would work as well.

[Trenchfoot]

Simple question: Should tribes be prohibited by game mechanics from conquering another tribe by force?

Follow up question: Should one massive tribe (disregarding how unlikely this is) be prohibited by game mechanics from conquering the entire map (save starting points)?

[Dubanka]

game wont live long enough to see that, and wont have the population to support ath much land mass. The land mass we have right now is grossly underpopulated. In concept your idea works. but the current prelude world is just too large.

Added after 9 minutes:

Simple question: Should tribes be prohibited by game mechanics from conquering another tribe by force?

Follow up question: Should one massive tribe (disregarding how unlikely this is) be prohibited by game mechanics from conquering the entire map (save starting points)?

1. No.
2. No. But. one would need to look at the reasons they were conqueroring the map...as in how. I've watched the chinese overrun entire servers because they could manipulate vulnerability windows to maximize their ttime slots. so yeah...No, but.

[orious13]

Maybe to avoid alt towns that just mule up the valuable resoucres, make these most valuable resources have to be mined and used in only the non-safe area.

What I mean is:

A) You set up your tribe in the "PvP-no safe" area.
B) In order to find the unobtanium you must use a territory control totem that has the added option (instead of usually tribe/quest system) to search for whatever type of unobtanium you want/need.
C) In order to gather this so that you can use it, you must have a "stockpile" or "furnace" built in your main totem area.
D) The unobtanium is automatically transported to your main totem "stockpile".
E) This unobtanium (rock version) has a durability of 5/5. If you remove it, after 5 game hours it turns into normal granite or whatever resource..or after you pass through the green mist into "safe-PvP" area.
F) This means you basically HAVE to craft it in your no safe area.
G) The safe area players will have to discover some sort of politics that makes it possible for the no-safe people to want to trade them or allow them permission to craft in their place....set up a tax or something. Maybe make it so that more mobs are in the safer area (there is still open pvp in the wilderness). Saying more mobs doesn't mean the best ones. There could be highly difficult bosses mostly in the no-safe areas.

Edit:
Seems like implementing some of this stuff will take a bit of work, but trying to find a solution is better than...not.

[mrcalhou]

1) PvP and PvE can both be done well in the same game.
A good step towards making good PvE would be to have dynamic mob and resource spawns and have [humorous] mini-story archs that has the player doing a variety of different activities. I think it would also be pretty neat if they could develop a random dungeon generator and place dungeon/cave systems throughout the game world that would change layout and mob/boss spawn at server restart. Basically keep things changing.
A good step towards making good PvP would be to allow players to fight over resources and have those resources matter. The reason Eve does so well is because the item and ship destruction means that there is a constant need to replace ships and items, and that requires resources and rare resources, and rare resources can only be found in certain areas, areas that players are allowed to control. Risk vs. Reward

2) Alt tribes wouldn't be that big of a deal if there was a war declaration system where the aggressor would have to pay tribute or something to be able to safely attack a tribe in safe areas and the defending tribe could have the option of also paying tribute to stop them from being able to do so if they do not wish to take the chances of fighting or if their military branch doesn't wish to get involved. But still, this would also have the side benefit of flushing resources out of the game making them have more value. PvP should almost always boil down to having players choose whichever they feel is the lesser evil.