Are contested totems the best way for land control

[Hanover]

And Jordi never announced how he planned warfare. ~~~~This is how Jordi has planned it from the very beginning.

So which is it?

Anyway, you seem to want everything without the work/risk. You want the safety of your bubble, but also unopposed access to everything else.

[NorCalGooey]

The solution is to add valuable resources to the areas where the mist recedes. All totems placed there will not be safe zones so other tribes can take the resources that are in your expansion totem.

Valuable resources always need to be in a PvP area. Keep the safe zones on the original totem but remove the part that doesn't let attackers kill people. I think it would be a good idea if they could kill but not loot inside the original totem. Unless the original totem was under siege or whatever system they want to implement, where the tribe defenders now have to stop the attackers from the siege. During the siege, all baskets and items are loot able for the besiegers.

This would still give meaning to attacking main totems but wouldn't cause the tribe to lose their land. Because no one in their right mind is going to build a sand castle for 100 hours, get it stolen by a larger tribe, and then think to themselves "Hmm no big deal, let's just go build another one only to have the same thing happen all over again."

That part of the pvp system we can do without. If you don't agree, please justify your opinion. Obviously it is more realistic to have all totems capture able but after all this is a game, a game which people invest lots of time into. If someone KNOWS an investment will go to ZERO they will surely not invest.

[Jadzia]

July 07 2008 [21:25] jooky@***: in the beginning we might not have destroyable towns yet
July 07 2008 [21:25] jooky@***: but when we do
July 07 2008 [21:25] jooky@***: players will be able to attack / burn / destroy buildings
July 07 2008 [21:26] jooky@***: this is something we will discuss

Please show me yours? Because I posted mine.

Of course. I read all of these posts back then. So I knew there would be warfare. I was wondering if it will be optional or not ?

So I decided to get to know it. But I'm a suspicious person and I didn't want to get a biased answer. Thats why I didn't ask it myself, I asked a friend to write a FAQ question. Not about if there will be safe zones or warfare...we knew there will be. He asked if the warfare will be free for all or opt-out in some ways. The answer was clear: it will be optional.

Now again, I'm a suspicious person. So I asked another friend to write another mail asking the same question...but acting like he was a guy who loved PvP and wanted a forced warfare. Guess what !! The answer was the same. It will be optional.
This was back in April-May in 2010.

Later during the summer a tribemate asked the same question. When warfare gets implemented, will it be FFA or opt-out? The answer was the same...it will be optional.

In October this question popped up again lol, when there was rumours about life-long membership. I wrote a mail and asked if warfare will be forced or opt-out...and yes, the answer was : it will be optional !

In January there was a big influx of Darkfall players, so this question became hot again. I wanted to know if there was any change so asked my friend again to write a new mail....he did. And the answer was: it will be optional !

This is how I know it. Jordi always planned it this way.
Can this change ? Of course. Everything can change. But its kind of unlikely....during all the last year every time he said the same thing, no matter who asked it and how he/she asked it. I believe he will stick to his word.

[MrDDT]

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.

[NorCalGooey]

I also like the idea of the home totem having destructible buildings etc...that stuff is all great. Just no actual land capture of home totem.

[Trenchfoot]

Ok I'll take another stab at it in the spirit of being constructive.

- Remove safe zones
- Fix /unstuck
- Introduce gates
- Gates require a key.
- Introduce siege equipment and anti-siege equipment
- Walls/gates inside totem area of influence can only be destroyed by siege equipment.
- Walls/gates should take a long time to breach.
- Walls/gates can be repaired by any member of the tribe.
- Siege equipment can only be moved around by X number of players.
- Siege equipment takes large amounts of resources to be built.
- Anti-siege equipment can destroy siege equipment.
- Resources (where it makes sense) should be depletable and rotate. Once they dry up they can be discovered again somewhere else.

And I hesitate to say let everyone build everywhere but I would really like to see a way for tribes to build outside their area of influence without requiring a totem. Perhaps a special building type? I don't know. Maybe walls built outside your tribe AoI are vulnerable to a bunch of guys with picks instead of just siege equipment?

The point is tribes should be able to have the option to try and control large areas outside their area of influence by outposts, forts, trading posts, and tiny settlements.

[MrDDT]

Ok I'll take another stab at it in the spirit of being constructive.

- Remove safe zones
- Fix /unstuck
- Introduce gates
- Gates require a key.
- Introduce siege equipment and anti-siege equipment
- Walls/gates inside totem area of influence can only be destroyed by siege equipment.
- Walls/gates should take a long time to breach.
- Walls/gates can be repaired by any member of the tribe.
- Siege equipment can only be moved around by X number of players.
- Siege equipment takes large amounts of resources to be built.
- Anti-siege equipment can destroy siege equipment.
- Resources (where it makes sense) should be depletable and rotate. Once they dry up they can be discovered again somewhere else.

And I hesitate to say let everyone build everywhere but I would really like to see a way for tribes to build outside their area of influence without requiring a totem. Perhaps a special building type? I don't know. Maybe walls built outside your tribe AoI are vulnerable to a bunch of guys with picks instead of just siege equipment?

The point is tribes should be able to have the option to try and control large areas outside their area of influence by outposts, forts, trading posts, and tiny settlements.

I would love to see outposts that can be "claimed" and defended/attacked like Shadowbane had. I think that would be a huge boon to allowing people to fight over something other than just totems.

[Hanover]

...................

What are you afraid of? You claim to speak for the masses that clearly outnumber the nasty PvP types. .../cough...
Why could you not band together to create your own player enforced "safe zone" or pay someone to protect you? Isn't this the beauty of a sandbox?
Why the need to hide behind mechanics?

For instance my guild routinely did mercenary work in Shadowbane. We helped many small and more RP centric guilds survive and thrive.

[Trenchfoot]

I would love to see outposts that can be "claimed" and defended/attacked like Shadowbane had. I think that would be a huge boon to allowing people to fight over something other than just totems.

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.

[Malivius]

Without a thriving player versus player conflict (along with other forms of interaction) this game will be boring and dead before it ever gets going...

There are vocal extremes to each side of this argument, but I don't think either really speaks for the bulk of the community. I don't believe anyone (except a very limited few people) would be happy with a combat-turned off building sim...what the hell would you do after the first month? (Which is where we are right now...)

At the same time, there are very few (I believe) that want a DF gankfest 24/7 with little else to do. Most of us are somewhere in the middle. I'd love to have a neutral tradepost that I had to keep protected (whether through cooperation or hiring guards)...it'd bring life into the game and bring the meta-game to life! (It would be awesome to have a thriving trade with several tribes that kept the tradepost safe in return for a discounted trade-rate, etc)

However, I would not enjoy another tribe (whether large or small) to be able to completely sack and claim my tradepost. It wouldn't be worth my time to build something if it was easy to sack. Gotta find the middle ground (as has been said by many in this thread)