Page 2 of 16 FirstFirst 123412 ... LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 151
  1. #11
    Quote Originally Posted by Yzandor View Post
    And what you think about one offline dude=one city guard?
    Then you get back to this issue.

    Quote Originally Posted by MrDDT View Post
    So according to this, if I buy 10 accounts and pay for them. I can have a damn great offline defense system even with all my tribe is online?
    Great so now its who has the most accounts wins.

    Nawh dont like this system at all.

    Punish large tribes for attacking small ones in another way. Make people want to be allies but make them pay for it in game too with resources to promote getting rid of dead way and causing strife in large alliances that form for no reason but to zerg.
    Im not trying to be a jerk here to people. I really do want to see a system work for everyone. But its hard to balance it.

    Like I said the key is just like macroing. You wont stop macroing, you wont stop griefers. Key is to reward people for not macroing or griefing, and lessen the impact of what they gain.

    Macroing can be slowed down mostly by rewarding people for actively playing. It wont stop macroing but it will make it so no one will care if you macro or not.

    Same with tribes. You should reward people for keeping a small tribe. But dont make it so rewarding that other tribes will split up their main tribe into tons of little ones.
    You give reasons to ally up, but also give reasons not too. This will cause large tribes to cut dead weight (which causes issues), it will also allow little tribes to be rewarded.

    How do you do that perfectly? Well its all about balancing.

  2. #12
    how about a npc guard of some type that requires you to use your own skill points to create, so like a level 1 noob guard for 10 skill points which would have 25 in a weapon skill and 25 in dodge or parry and have all normal stats of a average starting player.

  3. #13
    Quote Originally Posted by MrDDT View Post
    Then you get back to this issue.



    Im not trying to be a jerk here to people. I really do want to see a system work for everyone. But its hard to balance it.

    Like I said the key is just like macroing. You wont stop macroing, you wont stop griefers. Key is to reward people for not macroing or griefing, and lessen the impact of what they gain.

    Macroing can be slowed down mostly by rewarding people for actively playing. It wont stop macroing but it will make it so no one will care if you macro or not.

    Same with tribes. You should reward people for keeping a small tribe. But dont make it so rewarding that other tribes will split up their main tribe into tons of little ones.
    You give reasons to ally up, but also give reasons not too. This will cause large tribes to cut dead weight (which causes issues), it will also allow little tribes to be rewarded.

    How do you do that perfectly? Well its all about balancing.
    Ok, i understand your point, and it is a good point and forget it, ill never consider someone a jerk if he can push my reasonning farther :-)

    To keep the balance i have THE idea (hehe) : so forget the one dude offline=one city guard. Lets give the possibility to the tribes to HIRE those city guards. A tribe of 1-5 could hire 3 guards max. A tribe of 6-10 could hire 6 guards...etc. The goal is to try and make a ratio: A tribe of 1-5 would need around 10 guys to take it and so on. That way what you said wont apply i.e. it will be an advantage to have big tribes=more guards you can hire and better the protection. You could even put different lvls of guards (better equipped) but at a higher price. You could even hire different class of guards: archer, fighter...

    we are getting there, keep on your replies ;-)

  4. #14
    Then no one would be in anything less than a big tribe....Especially if you want it possible for 10 people to take anything 5 people or less. Even moreso if you want there to be a "siege any time you want" mantra.

    Having siege declaration and choosing a start time is part of balancing.

    I just think that guards should be tamed creatures. You level them yourself by going out and...leveling them. If they can wear gear, you give whatever you want to them. I'd doubt any possible guard system would be in before animal taming and after animal taming is in it should be (...comparatively speaking....) too much harder to turn them into possible guards.

    I want to see some werewolves. I want to see that it really plays into the moon cycle hehe. I also want vampires that are bats and asleep in the day and do vampire stuff at night.... oh yay for ideas.

  5. #15
    Quote Originally Posted by Yzandor View Post
    Ok, i understand your point, and it is a good point and forget it, ill never consider someone a jerk if he can push my reasonning farther :-)

    To keep the balance i have THE idea (hehe) : so forget the one dude offline=one city guard. Lets give the possibility to the tribes to HIRE those city guards. A tribe of 1-5 could hire 3 guards max. A tribe of 6-10 could hire 6 guards...etc. The goal is to try and make a ratio: A tribe of 1-5 would need around 10 guys to take it and so on. That way what you said wont apply i.e. it will be an advantage to have big tribes=more guards you can hire and better the protection. You could even put different lvls of guards (better equipped) but at a higher price. You could even hire different class of guards: archer, fighter...

    we are getting there, keep on your replies ;-)

    Doesnt fix the problem where people will always just band together to make huge alliances, and kill any small clan.

  6. #16
    Quote Originally Posted by MrDDT View Post
    Doesnt fix the problem where people will always just band together to make huge alliances, and kill any small clan.
    but is IT a problem? Its something you cannot avoid anyway! Just make it a bit harder for them and give them some political and/or trade penalties. We cant fix it, it comes with a real sandbox game like Xsyon should be. Its up to the little tribes who wants to stay small to negociate alliances, thats part of the fun no?

  7. #17
    Yz... we all agree about the "true" sandbox mentality. It would be cool, but it's less likely to work that way. The "true" sandbox is the most similar to reality, but people in reality are put in situations they'd rather not be in and cannot easily leave. In this game, you can basically go in whatever situation you want, so people will funnel into where they receive the best benefits for their trials before they go where there will be more unneeded hardships. Politics, negotiations, fighting, it's all fake in a game no matter how realistic it may seek to be.

    It'd be a little different if Xsyon was about kingdoms of people building and not about individuals building (whether joined with others or not).

  8. #18
    Well fighting between tribes is great but its not so cool going around with your 50 man tribe and destroying every 1 person homestead on the map XD just because you can.

  9. #19
    Quote Originally Posted by Yzandor View Post
    but is IT a problem? Its something you cannot avoid anyway! Just make it a bit harder for them and give them some political and/or trade penalties. We cant fix it, it comes with a real sandbox game like Xsyon should be. Its up to the little tribes who wants to stay small to negociate alliances, thats part of the fun no?
    I agree that is part of the fun. But you cant have it so they are on even footing. They need a leg up. Or like someone else said. You will have a 10x bigger fish to come eat you up.

    Now it would be ok if you wanted to have factions, red vs blue or yellow type of thing. But this is an open sandbox game. So you are trying to have it where people police themselves but that doesnt work.

    Coming up with a plan where small groups get a bonus but not such a bonus that its better to be small than allies. Allies should get a bonus but also have to do something or pay something. This will cause larger tribes/groups to have a conflict overtime due to these "dues" they owe. It will cause large groups/tribes to trim their fat. Which causes more issues. So then they will implode and become a bunch of smaller tribes at war with each other.

    Its very common. Everyone knows what we dont want is a few large groups pushing everyone around, at the same time we dont want the system exploited so they can do a mutli tribe system.

  10. #20
    Quote Originally Posted by MrDDT View Post
    Everyone knows what we dont want is a few large groups pushing everyone around, at the same time we dont want the system exploited so they can do a mutli tribe system.
    I dont know if we are on the same page or not, if am saying the same as you but in another way (cause english is my second language) but ill just add this: Its all normal to have large groups of scum bags, it WILL happen, now, what we have to try out is to control the amount of those large groups, discourage them with some penalties whatever it is (political, trades etc) and assisting the good tribes to defend themselfs with city guards. Anyway ill make a poll, i didnt saw anywhere if most of the players would want a safe place, somewhere invulnerable to attacks where they could protect themselfs and their goods.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •