What Xsyon Said...Yesterday

[NorCalGooey]

Funny thread, Dub
When I first read Trench's questions I was like poor guy...his intention is good but what answers he would get lol. If you want clear answers you have to ask much much more defined questions.


Like this. What answer did he expect...ok you want to make peace...sure you can. Shake the hand of your enemy, kiss him and its done. Or smoke a peace-pipe. Whatever


Very vague question imo. You can change the world by simply moving to another place...where you play an aggressive evil character, you band together with your evil friends and there you go the area is much more unsafe now. The question doesn't force an answer about the game mechanics.

The first question was a well defined one, and he got a correct and clear answer.



Again very vague. What does victory mean in Xsyon ? What does victory mean for Trench ? I don't know. Communities entering the state of victory...is that a victory if a tribe wins the fight over one of his enemy tribes ? Or only victory if they win the fight over all of their enemies ? Or only victory if they can conquer and rule even the peaceful tribes who never attacked them ?

The answer for the second part is clear imo : maintaining safe zone through hard work. Aka paying upkeep for safe zones, or paying a price for he expansion of the safe zone.

Even the word 'safe' doesn't mean the same for us. For me it means that something cannot be attacked, destroyed, looted, killed, anything. Safe. For Trench I guess it means something different...something that can be attacked but he has to protect it...I guess. That means totally unsafety for me.

Edit: another example for a question which will result a vague answer:

to protect yourself...what does it mean ? If I can build walls and gates which give me 100% protection then I protected myself. But again I'm pretty sure VeryWiiTee didn't mean that.
So even if the answer was: yes later on you have to work to protect yourself, again we wouldn't know if that means 100% safe walls and gates or it means that we have to fight to keep these walls up.

So my conclusion is: we need much more specific questions if we want clear answers.

I agree the vagueness goes both ways. But there is definitely detailed and well thought out questions people have asked that get an answer that seem to dodge the question. Examples Dub provided aren't the greatest

[Dubanka]

I agree the vagueness goes both ways. But there is definitely detailed and well thought out questions people have asked that get an answer that seem to dodge the question. Examples Dub provided aren't the greatest

i was lazy and just pulled them out of one place

perhaps not the best examples, but examples none the less.

My following responses to your post are not designed to irritate you, but are intended to help you see another point of view.

to ME... Xsyon's reply's are in keeping with what I have always believed to be the way this game is and was supposed to be.

and mac, i don't get irritated by internet forum play it's actually entertaining...especially when you prove exactly the point i'm making. When the devs posts an official response in this vague circular style it allow everyone to see their own ideas in it. You think he's talking to you. I think he's talking to me. This is all good...except for the fact that our desired end state are kinda sorta opposite each other.

The obtuse vagueness is great for early design, pre-build, early alpha marketing snippets on mmorpg.com or the like...when you are trying to drum up interest and create a following. When you want everyone to see what they want to see in your product. We're passed that. I'm pretty sure there is a plan in there somewhere, and that this isn't all just from the hip...it would be nice to get answers to questions based upon what you are going to do, or the options that are being considered in handling an issue. Those would be answers to questions as opposed to responses to questioins.

smiley face.

[Mactavendish]

Actually Appollo I am sticking to the intent of the topic.

What Dub is saying is they are vague answers, What I'm saying is that I understand the nature of what they are attempting and fully understand they cannot give some folks the answers that will satisfy them. ( I didn't realize you were the forum monitor )

I have to answer similar questions to these everyday. I easily understand how ( at times ) you just cannot answer a question directly if you are unsure whether or not you can stand by your answer for whatever reason. Also saying something like "it's on the table" tells me that it has been suggested, but has NOT been decided one way or the other.

If you don't like that, it's ok... won't change anything .. but it's ok.

[Jadzia]

I agree the vagueness goes both ways. But there is definitely detailed and well thought out questions people have asked that get an answer that seem to dodge the question. Examples Dub provided aren't the greatest

No doubt Thats why I said : The question doesn't force an answer about the game mechanics. Xsyon does like to give vague answers... I don't know if intentionally (sometimes for sure) or it is in his nature. That's why we have to ask very specific questions which are hard to answer in a vague way

8. Xsyon should be a zone free seamless world.

Trench I believe he meant that the game won't have loading zones, teleport gates and so on.

[Dubanka]

Actually Appollo I am sticking to the intent of the topic.

What Dub is saying is they are vague answers, What I'm saying is that I understand the nature of what they are attempting and fully understand they cannot give some folks the answers that will satisfy them. ( I didn't realize you were the forum monitor )

I have to answer similar questions to these everyday. I easily understand how ( at times ) you just cannot answer a question directly if you are unsure whether or not you can stand by your answer for whatever reason. Also saying something like "it's on the table" tells me that it has been suggested, but has NOT been decided one way or the other.

If you don't like that, it's ok... won't change anything .. but it's ok.

i understand them too...and i undstand i can perceive them in any number of ways depending upon which hat i want to wear.

I could see your point if the person answering with the community liaison...the PR guy...the marketing...whatever...the guy that has a script to follow, that knows what (s)he has been told to say, and whether or not they know more (or think they do at least) they would not be at liberty to divulge it. But we're talking now about the man with the plan. I'd like to hope he has a very specific idea of exactly what he wants to implement and exactly how he wants to implement...exception being for those things that he's still figuring out (like siege).

Heck it's the man, if it's still being worked out, say so. '...That issue is still beign worked on. Right now we're wrestling with how we incorporate elements a b and c, while still keeping y and z relevant aspects to the game...' THAT would be informative, and insightful...and a lot better than, Yes, you will be able to make peace....duuuuuude passs the pipe....we're gonna make peeeeeace.

No doubt Trench I believe he meant that the game won't have loading zones, teleport gates and so on.

yeah he took seamless world to mean non-zoned, non-instanced.

[Trenchfoot]

yeah he took seamless world to mean non-zoned, non-instanced.

That's OK. It was my full intention to give him room to express his ideas without committing to a specific feature. Now we can clarify the question.

To me this is more about ideas than finished features. If I can get behind your ideas, I can stick around and support you through their implementation. As a paying customer if I don't think I'll enjoy your ideas, talking about implementation is pointless, and the marriage is off. Not knowing what your ideas are is equal to 'thinking I won't enjoy your ideas'. Which gives Xsyon 2 ways to loose my sub, and one way to keep it. I would think that having one way to loose my sub, and one way to keep it would be a safer bet.

What I'm really looking for is a basis for me to continue supporting this game, and to avoid paying for and putting forth effort towards, something I won't enjoy.

[Xsyon]

Hello everyone,

I just skimmed this thread and haven't read through all replies. I knew my answers to these questions would be criticized. I did find the questions to be loaded and vague and I can't give better answers.

Maybe some of the questions are just not clear to me. For example, the game is a zone free seamless world. To me, that's a physical aspect of the world (no instances) which how the game is now. The world changes dynamically... it already does as players deplete resources, change the land and will soon be able to plant trees and create resources as well.

We don't have a set in stone 'roadmap' for the next two years and many of these things some of you are pushing for are not designed and were not part of our original design. We do have many plans and things designed that I have not and will not yet announce until it makes sense to do so. Some things will change and some will be dropped if they don't make sense to implement as time goes on.

The game world evolves with players, as I've stated before. I try to answer these questions as best as possible. If the questions are not specific enough or are asking about things that we haven't yet designed (such as a siege system) I really can't answer with details. That's the nature of this project and especially the 'prelude' phase, to listen, adapt and change the game. I hope that helps, we're just going one step at a time here.

[Dubanka]

Thank you for jumping in...i can understand your point on vague question gets vague response.

Can i question on your response?
Xsyon should be an open world, but not with attacking or destroying anything at all times.
Structures should have a level of safety, depending on defenses and choices made by players (alliances, choice to war or not etc.)
This means a lot of different things to the different groups. By 'not attack or destroying anything at all times'....are you implying that players (and their stuff) should have the ability to be absolutely safe if they choose, or are you meaning that anything may be vulnerable, but not all the time (ie. only during certain windows? Or did you mean something else.

The world should change dynamically, as determined by players.

Again, this means different things. For the more militant among us, this means that i should be able to raid, conquer and control the world, shaping it to my warped and twisted vision if i have the strength and will to do so...for 'us' the means safe zones are going away, that at some point we will have an entire world that is up for grabs...after all, how can i dynamically shape the world if 90% of it is under the safety of someones personal totem protection? Obviously the more meek see this as the ability to build monuments and castles and roads and cover the world in quilts and grass tarps...they will change it dynamically by covering their mud hut in a PURPLE BLANKET this week (can i get whoo hooo from the party people in the back?). SO, what exactly do you mean by 'dynamically change'...the macro political/economic/military version, or the micro 'make my wall color match my mud hut' version

again, thanks for jumping in.

[JCatano]

Dropping safety totems on new areas causing a lower chance of rare resources is a huge fail, in my opinion.

Macro inside the safe zone, or step just outside of the perimeter and have a the full chance of success while being able to move right back across the invulnerable line if attacked.

[Trenchfoot]

For the more militant among us, this means that i should be able to raid, conquer and control the world, shaping it to my warped and twisted vision if i have the strength and will to do so.

I would add 'conquer and control the world, shaping it to my vision of balance and order, if WE have the strength to do so.

Conquest remains restricted to a numerous consensus of players. Therefore the 'WE'. No one person or even a handful will ever be able to conquer the map. To me, conquest is a feature that serves the purpose of settling disputes. ie. I'm against conquest for conquest sake. I favor a world where someone generally has to want something from you first, then conquest is a result of that. For some it will be because they want your land/resources/compliance with an issue they have with you. Not, hey let's get together and conquer a town this Saturday night what do you say?..

I would immensely enjoy a system where the following occurs:

Bob is the village asshat. He makes it tough to get along with him as a neighbor. I've fought with and killed Bob many times for many different reasons. We bicker and argue all the time. But Bobs tribe doesn't besiege my tribe. Other than petty squabbles, our tribes do a fair amount of trade or even indirect trade. Maybe Bobs tribe brings something into the area that also enhances something I bring to the area.

A large invading force comes into our neighborhood and besieges Bob and his tribes castle. I generally loathe Bob. I might even chuckle a bit that he's under the gun. But if Bobs tribe which is larger than my tribe can be successfully raided, that means I'm probably next. Which gives me and Bob a single issue to come together on. And that is 'Don't come to this neighborhood looking for trouble because you'll get it from all of us.'.

This is what I want to see. Communities that are so invested in one another, that the consequences of one tribe going to war ripples throughout the player base. So that everyone has a stake in making a careful choice which causes to take up collectively.

This gives a great dynamic to leadership I think is missing in many other games. That the player base can take on the role of leader and convince enough people to join their cause as to become a force to accomplishing that cause. Which is what it would take for conquest of anything other than a small area.

That's how I see conquest when I talk about it.