War, taking towns & forts

[MrDDT]

Haha I put it in bold for you.

[Book]

@Orious

I see your point about not necessarily being on the same team. I was thinking it might become a religious difference between E and G but even nations with the same religion could to war over resources, etc.

Did the devs say something about giving a segment of the population an option to "opt-out" of total annihilation during war? I thought I had read that but could be wrong.
If that is the case though, that's why I was curious about G winding up in an E vs. E type battle without choice. Not sure how to incorporate the option to keep a certain degree of artificial safety if they did have that in mind. I really do think I remember seeing that option somewhere though.

Perhaps N can be that, and limit it to homesteads and tribes of 5 or fewer people? The potential for exploiting that with alts is still there with that but it would give the little guy a chance to lower risk while not having the full benefits of a large tribe (religious or technological).

Maybe make even the artificial safety breakable using religion but make that a very difficult process so it would only be used in extreme cases of resource hoarding, and not worth it just to bother the chillin mountainman/mountainwoman.


Edit: @others:
how does it not make sense that someone will move on to something else if the game heads in a direction that is no longer enjoyable? If I rent a movie, and discover partway through that the movie is not what I like, I'm going to shut it off. I'm not going to force myself to sit through it out of some strange devotion to the director... know what I mean? Of course people who buy a service are not going to continue buying it if they no longer like it. How is that wrong?

[Jadzia]

Haha I put it in bold for you.

Asking for a new server is not quitting. I would keep playing on the new server.

But anyway, this is a silly debate. No one would play a game he doesn't enjoy, why would he ? Just see the big amount of PvPers who already quit because they didn't find the game fun. Force people to do what they don't want to and they will leave. Thats why its important to find a way which makes most of the people happy. Or at least the majority. Or just announce the way it will work and that will attract the people who like the announced system.

You should give a chance to Jordi to see if his setup works.

[orious13]

Oh....religion.
I kind of just figured (actually my own idea....dunno about jordy) an architect would make a deity statue. Say evil players can have X deity and good can have Y deity... neutral can have X or Y but not both. You walk up to the statue and you can gain the religious ability as your magic. Maybe depending on the alignment of the planets/moon phases (lol is he joking?) their's a week of "The Deity Boba Fett has found Chuck Norris lying with his wife Dakota Fanning (sorry these are all random names), and has allowed open war with no penalties." sorta like a death count only thing. Obviously religion is probably far off as is actual magika if ever.

You'll always have problems where if A tribe is fighting B tribe... C tribe will try to interfere (like taking a castle in L2...almost winning until the server HERO class chars destroyed you). You'll just have to take that into account and pay some mercs to help you out.

You should give a chance to Jordi to see if his setup works.

but but but...
...fine.

[Jadzia]

@Orious
Did the devs say something about giving a segment of the population an option to "opt-out" of total annihilation during war? I thought I had read that but could be wrong.
If that is the case though, that's why I was curious about G winding up in an E vs. E type battle without choice. Not sure how to incorporate the option to keep a certain degree of artificial safety if they did have that in mind. I really do think I remember seeing that option somewhere though.

They plan to give us the option to choose to be a warring or a non-warring tribe. Orious posted about how warring tribes would relate to each others (if I got him right). Non-warring tribes can live in peace and can't be attacked in their territory.

[MrDDT]

Asking for a new server is not quitting. I would keep playing on the new server.

But anyway, this is a silly debate. No one would play a game he doesn't enjoy, why would he ? Just see the big amount of PvPers who already quit because they didn't find the game fun. Force people to do what they don't want to and they will leave. Thats why its important to find a way which makes most of the people happy. Or at least the majority. Or just announce the way it will work and that will attract the people who like the announced system.

You should give a chance to Jordi to see if his setup works.

We can draw this out more because clearly you dont want to admit anything ever, and thats why you have issues. Just admit it.
"GAMEBREAKER FOR ME" Thats what you said. Not "Server breaker" not "Oh well, ok I guess I will have to deal with it" No GAMEBREAKER.
You then said he had to start a new server for you haha. ROFL

I dont have to get hit by a bus to know it can kill me. I would rather stop it now before its in place before more people are upset over how things are done.

Already people have said "I dont like it this way Im not going to play" yes of course this can be said for both sides. Which is why I want this cleared up with this anywhere anytime totem issue.

I would say MOST PVPers didnt quit because of the safe areas, they quit because the combat and game is broken right now. Have you done PVP in this game? I have LOTS of it, and its a joke how it is right now. EVERYONE know this.
Yes the combat system is going to be revamped. Which is why I want this in place NOW while its being changed and thought about instead of after when it will be harder to code and people wont be mislead.

I mean most people I know bought this game because of the open PVP FFA style of combat. How you missed that for so long is very odd to me because its been said so much.

Xsyon needs help on understanding how games play out. He cant play every game out there. So he needs the advice on how these systems will work. The system you are talking about, you wanted it changed to (the one he changed it to) will not work well. Ive pointed this out. THAT is why Im here posting to get this expressed to Jordi.

This all was hashed out LONG ago, I thought it was put to rest when Jordi PROMISED us at the release of the game (THE FIRST RELEASE) that this game would be like he said. Open pvp, with good vs evil system to protect people. Prelude would have safe areas UNTIL people could build up and protect themselves. New areas after prelude would be contested with rare resources, not safe areas etc.

These are the things, would like them BACK. These things that were promised to us.

[Phatkat]

Does anyone know if the current system is gona change?
The current system isnt the worst but needs some work. Have any of the devs actually told us what direction they are taking this game in?

[ifireallymust]

I like the idea of a large zone with safe areas as we have them now (just in our tribal area) and a huge no-safe zone area, rich in resources that cannot be gathered in the safe areas. The pvpers may think they'll like this, too, but they won't.

They won't like it because, while certain heavily concentrated resources will be heavily contested, scattered, smaller pockets of those resources won't be patrollable.

Consider mining. There are several types. Massive strip mining sites and large, deep mining operations are static and great for fighting over. But there have always been the little wildcat mines, operated by small groups or even one person. They are in less accessible areas, the tunnels are small and relatively shallow, and the risk is high for comparatively paltry reward. Then there have always been loners who made their way by panning from streams.

Consider animal taming. A huge horse herd on a grassy spot of land not too far from a safe area would be constantly contested. Only large tribes with a strong pvp element would be able to access those. But if the pvp zones are massive enough, there is always the possibility of small herds high in the mountains that move around constantly and can't be trapped, killed, or guarded (if mechanics are put in place to prevent the same people who cut down all the trees they don't use from killing all the animals they don't tame!).

The safe zones with added no-safe zones don't just give heavily pve oriented large tribes a way to play the game, this set up would give small tribes and solo players a chance to participate in pve and pvp, in trade and exploration and resource gathering (with higher risks for higher rewards, of course). It also would give pvpers who don't want to do the equivalent of a gate camp pvp as they would be able to raid supply lines, hunt for soloers out harvesting and taming, and so shed blood on a daily basis without allowing them to completely lock down entire regions of the game.

So yes, please. Make those pvp areas much larger than the pve ones. Make them vast, in fact. The bigger the better.

[Jadzia]

Does anyone know if the current system is gona change?
The current system isnt the worst but needs some work. Have any of the devs actually told us what direction they are taking this game in?

This is their plan:

What I imagine is:
- Tribes choosing to become warring on non-warring, not as an on / off switch but as a permanent or difficult to reverse decision, likely based on tribal actions.
- Warring tribes would be able to conquer and raid others, but they will also become susceptible to war. Non warring tribes would keep their area safe, but don’t gain the ability to raid or conquer other tribes.
- Both warring and non-warring tribes could claim resources that would be up for contest by both types of tribes.
- Some expansion zones being open to more conquest without safe zones, while in others tribes would retain the choice to war or not.

[MrDDT]

I like the idea of a large zone with safe areas as we have them now (just in our tribal area) and a huge no-safe zone area, rich in resources that cannot be gathered in the safe areas. The pvpers may think they'll like this, too, but they won't.

They won't like it because, while certain heavily concentrated resources will be heavily contested, scattered, smaller pockets of those resources won't be patrollable.

Consider mining. There are several types. Massive strip mining sites and large, deep mining operations are static and great for fighting over. But there have always been the little wildcat mines, operated by small groups or even one person. They are in less accessible areas, the tunnels are small and relatively shallow, and the risk is high for comparatively paltry reward. Then there have always been loners who made their way by panning from streams.

Consider animal taming. A huge horse herd on a grassy spot of land not too far from a safe area would be constantly contested. Only large tribes with a strong pvp element would be able to access those. But if the pvp zones are massive enough, there is always the possibility of small herds high in the mountains that move around constantly and can't be trapped, killed, or guarded (if mechanics are put in place to prevent the same people who cut down all the trees they don't use from killing all the animals they don't tame!).

The safe zones with added no-safe zones don't just give heavily pve oriented large tribes a way to play the game, this set up would give small tribes and solo players a chance to participate in pve and pvp, in trade and exploration and resource gathering (with higher risks for higher rewards, of course). It also would give pvpers who don't want to do the equivalent of a gate camp pvp as they would be able to raid supply lines, hunt for soloers out harvesting and taming, and so shed blood on a daily basis without allowing them to completely lock down entire regions of the game.

So yes, please. Make those pvp areas much larger than the pve ones. Make them vast, in fact. The bigger the better.

I agree with this right here. Pretty much what I believe to be true 100%.

Like you also said PVPers wont like it, but they will be fine, because the small pockets of resources will slip through like you said, and that will allow both PVEers and small groups of PVPers to hold them, and use them. While larger tribes (both PVP and PVE) will be contesting over the large areas of these resources.

I tried to tell Jadzia that with the keep the safe areas limited to the starting areas, but she believe that PVE areas should be vast, and even with the non safe areas. I dont know why they think that but its not going to hurt the PVPers.