Are contested totems the best way for land control

[Hanover]

Silly question... Can the game engine handle "large" groups?

[Trenchfoot]

The notion that diplomacy exists to negotiate an entrance to war is backwards.

Change 'entrance' to 'avert'.

Or are you suggesting that everyone agree to live in peace never expecting differences that lead to war to occur? If war isn't the natural course of things here (war meaning armed conflict) why aren't we all in the same tribe?

@Hanover

Good question. A better one might be.... nvm.

[ocoma]

Silly question... Can the game engine handle "large" groups?

Atm the game can't handle groups at all. :-(

[Salvadore]

problem is i'm not being clear in my definition of 'costly'

'raid totem' 100 wood blocks, 200 bricks, 60 mortar, 50 feathers, 50 nails, 50 cloth string. they get more expensive from there.
in additionthe attacker will need to bring in and assemble seige equipment on site...ie.
battering ram: 6 large wood logs. 500 twine. 10 med metal plate. 100 screws. 20 long wood handles.

so by costly i mean that the attacker is having to front a large amount of resources up front to wage a war...in addition to any maint costs they have on their totem.

Might as well factor in the attacker's total cost of ownership, not just the siege totem as well. This would account all gear for all attacking tribe, resources required to get their skills on par/specc'd the way they want, logistical factors, and anything else that contributes to the final product of a siege totem being planted. Obviously, if they were something considered "costly" to the tribe, the variance in other costs would also need to be considered.

A tribe would obviously NOT just jump into spending the cost for a war totem if their tribe was not prepared...thus simply wasting the resources!

I think this might work.

You base the cost on your opponent size. Then you add a feature that allows homesteaders and smaller tribes to 'ally', thereby increasing the cost to attack any one of them. The more allies you have, the more it costs your attacker. On the other hand this would have to have some limit so that massive tribes can't make it impossible to go to war ever. Perhaps only small/homestead have the ability to use the ally mechnism and larger tribes woud have to arrange formal treaties on their own in game?

Right right. I just meant that it's difficult to judge at this point but I agree the concept is sound.

I think Dubs's ranked totem ideas would suffice as to the cost per siege totem. If there is a crutch mechanic that will increase cost to siege someone just because of size and allies, that would cause stagnation due to zerging. Have it a fixed rate IMO regardless of it being a homesteader or Hopi's capital tribe city.

It does sound related to SB in variable ways, but honestly, that's perfectly fine. SB had THE GREATEST sieging system in an MMO to date.

[Dubanka]

I think this might work.

You base the cost on your opponent size. Then you add a feature that allows homesteaders and smaller tribes to 'ally', thereby increasing the cost to attack any one of them. The more allies you have, the more it costs your attacker. On the other hand this would have to have some limit so that massive tribes can't make it impossible to go to war ever. Perhaps only small/homestead have the ability to use the ally mechnism and larger tribes woud have to arrange formal treaties on their own in game?



Right right. I just meant that it's difficult to judge at this point but I agree the concept is sound.

and to be clear...i wouldnt go too far with the whole inverse numbers to cost relationship...it would be meant to be an 'intent' mechanic. obviously there are a ton of loop holes (ie. make your raiding guild to avoid some of the costs) and trying to make it based on allies etc. would be kinda pointless, since you just don't declare them blah blah blah. basically you set up the system with an obvious intent...abusing the intent is then punishable be server hate...leaving your tribal area in a smoking heap. But i would err on the side of i simplicity, since at the end of the day, someone is going to find a way to go around the system.

[Book]

and to be clear...i wouldnt go too far with the whole inverse numbers to cost relationship...it would be meant to be an 'intent' mechanic. obviously there are a ton of loop holes (ie. make your raiding guild to avoid some of the costs) and trying to make it based on allies etc. would be kinda pointless, since you just don't declare them blah blah blah. basically you set up the system with an obvious intent...abusing the intent is then punishable be server hate...leaving your tribal area in a smoking heap. But i would err on the side of i simplicity, since at the end of the day, someone is going to find a way to go around the system.

Sorry, just trying to follow along here... isn't he talking about a direct numbers to cost relationship? Meaning to more ppl/allies, the more costly it is... just want to make sure I have that understood otherwise trying to build on it would be kinda pointless

So assuming that is indeed the case...

I like the idea of homesteaders being able to band together in some way that still affords them the homesteading freedom they seek.
On the other hand, question:
How do you envision limiting the scope of the allies geographically?
What I mean is, can homesteaders ally other homesteaders from the other side of the map?
Do you limit it by zone? But then people do live on borders so that doesn't seem sound.
Do you limit it by region? Might work.

I was thinking allying with people on the other side of the map wouldn't make much sense since there is no internet/radio like communication, and they wouldn't be able to come to anyone's aid aside from aiding purely with a game mechanic.
SO
was thinking, we do have the ability to raise the ground and make fires. We can light fires to alert neighbors within sight of those fires, and they can do the same with their neighbors further than you.

It could eventually lead to a broad coalition ranging over a wide geographical expanse, while remaining somewhat realistic to what we have to work with.

DO NOT READ THE FOLLOWING:
but I do have to say it because, well, it's how I am.
Building a pre-emptive coalition to make it costlier for your enemy to attack is using diplomacy to avert war
Sorry, hehe

[Trenchfoot]

I think Dubs's ranked totem ideas would suffice as to the cost per siege totem. If there is a crutch mechanic that will increase cost to siege someone just because of size and allies, that would cause stagnation due to zerging. Have it a fixed rate IMO regardless of it being a homesteader or Hopi's capital tribe city.

Fair point. And Dub is right there are a ton of loopholes.

The difficulty would be in balancing the fixed rate. Can't be too high and it can't be too low. Frankly, I would prefer an open world where the cards fall where they may. But I'm trying, I'm trying.

@Book

Of course there would have to be all kinds of limitations on it as you pointed out with your questions. And that's the trouble with the balancing act. It's like trying to keep a squirrel out of the bird feeder and still feed the birds. Before long you have a chain of mechanism like a maze. The birds don't get fed and the squirrel just ends up solving the puzzle on youtube.

EDIT: I find it difficult making suggestions with the non-pvp element in mind without giving them more bad ideas.

Building a pre-emptive coalition to make it costlier for your enemy to attack is using diplomacy to avert war

This can be true. But it shouldn't be a way to avoid conflict by flipping a switch either.

[Dubanka]

you're talking different issues. an alliance mechanism would seem to be something that would be easily tied to the totem menu. add friends. designate their tribe as ally, friend, enemy, each having a differnet subset of 'priviliges' ie. allies could harvest resources on other allies land, /ally chat channel, petentially 'binding' to other allies totems, allies received notification when other allies were attacked, allies receive 'same' affects under war conditions as the warred tribe (yes, thats a different subject).

honestly, you can't arbitrarily limit allies...well you could, but it's just as easy to work around, so there really is no point in doing so...and a number limit would not really be effective because if it's a, for instance, '10 ally' max, there is a big difference betwen 10 homestead and 10 50 player tribes...so you just let it be open, and let the playerbase decide when someone is becoming too big.

i think geographically, alliances will sort themselves out...with the current modes of travel, you can be allied with someone on the other side of the map, but it really wont do you any good except for major events...on a day to day basis it would really be pointless.

one reason i am not real concerned about the zerg effect here...not nearly as much as i was in sb, is, at least currently, a city is not a requirement. a tribe could very well lead a nomadic existence, picking up and moving as the situation required. Do not build what you can't afford to lose. If i was going to pick a fight with the server zerg, i'd have a couple mule toons in the guild, and would basically break camp and do it mongol style. plant a totem as a forward operating base/respawn point...fight out of it until its location was discovered, break camp and do it again. You can do this in the xsyon model because crafting is character based, not building based.

[Trenchfoot]

Well I've always wanted an ally feature for the sole purpose of friending baskets/terraforming on my land.

EDIT: We wouldn't want a system that in essence places a tit for tat value on war. In other words, the cost to reward ratio should vary. Sometimes, it should more profitable than it is costly. Other times it should be more costly than it is profitable. By saying 'You'll always pay in cost equal to what you get out of conquest.', it ruins it.

[Salvadore]

No need to force extra costs as per allies/mercs/etc imo. Having the ability for anyone to show up at any time for any side is a really great political dynamic.

Some tribes have honor fights - nation vs nation and respect/egos are polished.

Some tribes intentionally war other tribes that "crash" their honor wars.

Some tribes prefer to stay very small - allow them to band with other smalls to take down a much bigger tribe for whatever reason.

Some player styles prefer to zerg it up - let them, don't limit them! Allow the politics to happen...let them zerg if they wanna zerg and others ally to fight them IF NECESSARY!

Rankable totems per maintenance and size imo, and different styles of war totems at fixed costs imo!

This all adds much needed dynamics to a true sandbox environment - everyone has a choice, just has to do it.