Wars, Sieges, Safe Zones, etc

[MrDDT]

I really see no reason to have a contest tribe, other than "unlimited" totems. Which is a bonus, but whats the point of a totem if it doesnt offer anything extra. You remove the totem bonuses to allow them to place more totems.

The trade system doesnt make sense either for totems. Why not just have a trade option instead of "sieging" it for trade?

This is also missing a TON of details of how sieges will work. Not sure how well 24 hour timers on sieges will work either. Seems a little short. Standard from other games has been 3 days.

Why have it so only the founding leader can do these "trades"? I mean it should just be an option to allow someone to do it or not, else what if the founding leader is inactive the tribe will be stuck like that forever.
If you are trading to GET another tribe, why would that be a big deal to get extra totems?

[KeithStone]

You are still missing the point that conquest tribes can set up non conquest tribes with a capital totem directly next to their conquest tribe. Thus they have safe goods.

A non-conquest tribe cannot place any totem in a contested area at all - so this would be impossible

I made lots of edits to the original post, so go read it over again and see if it still leaves a loophole

[NorCalGooey]

Ok, but they can place it on the border right where the contested area and non contested areas meet.

Multiple accounts will be abused. Hell, that doesn't even have to happen. All you have to do is have one member who doesn't particulary care for combat, but still likes to help out the tribe. He could start his own non conquest homestead to keep all the tribes goodies at, and place that homestead right next to the border of conquest lands.


One alternative would be to have greater rewards the farther away from non contested territory boundary (lets just say, where the green mist starts for now) a tribe put expansion boundaries. This would give greater incentive to a lot of tribes to settle outwards and not want to abuse having their conquest totem directly next to non conquest area border.

[MrDDT]

The problem with this system
1. Capital cities controlled by non-conquest tribes can be a used as a safe zone for not only themselves but can allow other pvp'ers access inside their walls when being hunted by other pvp'ers
2. Non-Conquest tribes can setup a 2nd tribe next to their capital that is non-contested that is used as their Conquesting tribe. - the members can jump back and forth between the 2 tribes

These are the major problems the PVPers would have.

Which I think making the time limit to join another tribe after leaving one to something like 24 hours or 36 hours would help this.

[NorCalGooey]

Also, if there is going to be unlimited totem potential, the more totems you throw down, the harder the next one becomes to maintain (with resources or whatever, assuming that totem system gets put in) . So there should be a soft cap on amount of totems, so to speak.

[KeithStone]

Also, if there is going to be unlimited totem potential, the more totems you throw down, the harder the next one becomes to maintain (with resources or whatever, assuming that totem system gets put in) . So there should be a soft cap on amount of totems, so to speak.

The other thing that you might think about, I didn't mention this - I guess i should - any of your totems could be seiged at the same time, so you wouldn't be able to defend them all at all times, which would limit how many you could hold.

[NorCalGooey]

Right, but without resources needed to maintain and place a totem, one tribe will just fill the world with useless totems. Unless a new conquest totem could only be placed every 7 days or something like that, but still, resources should be needed to put it down and maintaining it should be more than just defending it, it should be maintaining it with resources.

[MrDDT]

Right, but without resources needed to maintain and place a totem, one tribe will just fill the world with useless totems. Unless a new conquest totem could only be placed every 7 days or something like that, but still, resources should be needed to put it down and maintaining it should be more than just defending it, it should be maintaining it with resources.

Ya a new totem system would be needed because the current one with unlimited, would just be littered with totems.

[KeithStone]

Right, but without resources needed to maintain and place a totem, one tribe will just fill the world with useless totems. Unless a new conquest totem could only be placed every 7 days or something like that, but still, resources should be needed to put it down and maintaining it should be more than just defending it, it should be maintaining it with resources.

that's why I added on there that the system I talk about plus totem decay would make it work.

[NorCalGooey]

As long as the totem decay comes from lack of resources being put in, and not just inactivity. A tribe full of 100 actives could have unlimited totems that never decay and in theory, all they would have to do is show up at each siege and protect their totem. Where as if they needed more resources for each additional totem , it would be extremely hard for any zerg to form because of that point where they simply cannot maintain resources for all totems AND defend against sieges too.