01/25/2016 - Feedback Request - War Server Proposal

[Xsyon]

Hello everyone,

I've written up some proposed improvements to the War Server based on previous ideas of mine and feedback from players. These changes would take place after most of the current creature and combat changes I'm working on are complete.

Proposed Sytem:

- Tribes of BAND size or above would be allowed potential control over an entire territory. To first control a territory they must have their tribe within the territory and then place 4 control totems within the territory.

- Control totems would claim a small plot of land, 20x20 meters. They would need to be spread throughout the zone with a minimum distance between each control totem.

- Twice a week control totems would become 'open' for a certain period of time (an hour). This could happen more often. The time could be set by the controlling tribe and would be listed on the totem.

- While open, players from another tribe can occupy the control totem area and take it over. Claiming a control totem would be occupation based (like several PvP objectives in Warcraft where having a player of a faction increases its value until a limit is reached and the objective is claimed). The goal during a battle would be to kill off your enemy while your tribe mates remain alive and active within the control totem’s area.

- If the limit is not reached during the 'open' time, the current tribe retains control.

- Control of the territory would allow the tribe to set the entire territory to Safe or PvP.

- Control of the territory would give the tribe and its allies resource bonuses. Tribe members and allies would get:
2x amount of scavenged resources
bonus to quality level (but not exceeding the max quality)
increased chance of finding rare materials

- Tribes could gain control and advantages over other territories by capturing all control points.

- Optional: Setting a territory to Safe would give lesser bonuses than setting it to PvP.

- Optional: Control of the territory could entirely prevent non tribe members and allies from gathering resources on the land.

Potential Future Enhancements:

- Keeping control over a territory could also require some form of upkeep (resources? blood?).

- On top of the controlled territories: High danger zones could be full loot PvP with slightly higher resource bonuses, medium danger zones could be random loot PvP with no resource bonuses and low danger zones could be no PvP and no resource bonuses (or the same as medium danger zones).

- Controlled territories could give a chance for extremely rare materials or resources that would only be found on controlled territories.

- Building allowed at control totems. This could first be limited to single story building and would require destruction of at least gates.

- Allowing all players to build ramps and platforms (to get over walls) when control totems are ‘open’.

- Gathering resources or hunting on territory controlled by another tribe could be considered ‘poaching’. It would be possible but not yield bonus results and would decrease your alignment towards evil. This would require the full good vs evil system to be in place.

Questions For Players:

- What is the minimum size tribe that should be allowed to control a territory? I think BAND is good to start off with.

- How many control totems should be required to claim a territory? I think 4 is a good starting point, possibly 2 or 3 though due to the currently low population.

- How much land should a control totem claim?

- How often should control totems become ‘open’?

- For how long should control totems become ‘open’?

- Should control totem’s alternate being open, or should all of them be open at one time?

- Would you like to see the controlling tribe set a territory to Safe or PvP? Or would you like to see controlled territories always be set to PvP? (Regardless, while control totems are open the entire territory would be open to PvP).

[Darkwalker9]

First I love the idea. I have been on the fence about playing on the PVP server, I miss the old days of having that threat running around in your mind. However this proposed idea would be enough to push me to highly consider the PVP server as well as pushing to grow some strong PVPers into the game.

To your questions -
- What is the minimum size tribe that should be allowed to control a territory? I think BAND is good to start off with. Personally i think it should be Clan size

- How many control totems should be required to claim a territory? I think 4 is a good starting point, possibly 2 or 3 though due to the currently low population. I think no less then 4 unless you change it up so low danger is 2 medium 3 high and extreme 4.

- How much land should a control totem claim? 20x20 is fine

- How often should control totems become ‘open’?

- For how long should control totems become ‘open’? I think once a week is good any less or any longer would just make it feel like a chore or not a big deal.

- Should control totem’s alternate being open, or should all of them be open at one time? This one is tricky... Many people are going to complain that is to hard to defend all of them being open at a time... However people that are coordinated will not struggle with this.

- Would you like to see the controlling tribe set a territory to Safe or PvP? Or would you like to see controlled territories always be set to PvP? (Regardless, while control totems are open the entire territory would be open to PvP). Its a PVP server i don't understand the idea of a safe zone... that is what your tribe is for and why you build walls.

[wastelandstoic]

1) Minimum size. I think Homestead or no minimum size would be fine. If fewer players want to try to take on a larger group so be it and allow everyone to get in on the action.

2) Control totems. I think this one could be tied to claim size. A homestead would have to place one control totem; a band would have to place two; a clan three; and a tribe 4.

3) Claim size. I think 25 x 25 should be minimum claim size especially if you can only hold one territory at a time.

4) Control totems -open. I think they should cycle on a 24 hour basis. Closed for 1 RL day then open at least an hour or more.

5) Control totem -open time. One hour sounds appropriate possibly more.

6) All totems open or alternating. I'd say all open at the same time. From #1 above, a homestead defending a claim would place one totem and defend only that one --possibly against a much larger force. A tribe, with quite a few more members, would have to place 4 totems and defend 4. If this type of totem calculation is used the number of totems needed to claim a territory could be determined instead by the number of active players at the time of claim totem placement --to serve as a slight equalizing factor when a small group is facing a much larger group.

Question: What's going to prevent a tribe from ignoring another tribe’s claim and just finding their own extreme scav area and placing a claim totem there? Ad infinitum.. Where no one really disputes other tribe’s claims but still reaps the resource rewards of their own claims.

I defiantly think upkeep of these claim totems should start as soon as they are placed and will have to be fairly strict yet balanced with the time/ rewards of the claim. Also, I think there should be a limit to how long tribes can hold a claim area, say 2 weeks, and then said tribe cannot place a claim totem again for a certain time, say one week. And /or possibly restrict said tribe from placing a totem in the same area as a previous claim totem for a certain period of time, say 30 RL days.

This would limit tribes from holding a territory for long periods of time and keep them on the move to scout new areas thus coming into contact with other tribes with claims to possibly dispute. Some sort of system along these lines, I think, should be in place.

* On another note (but still linked to this one) here’s hoping you are able to bring on board at least one other coder to continue with the existing development list since you will have 2 different servers/ player bases to appease.

[wastelandstoic]

Another question/ concern: How will claim totems effect tribes existing in the area at time of placement? I can foresee griefers placing totems right up against existing homesteads solely for annoying/ harassing other players.

[chojinuk]

I like this idea alot.

Though Im on the fence about including homesteads because of a few reasons.

1 player cant really defend against lots of people right ?

and it will give even more of an incentive for homesteads to join together.


Abuses.

So the defending tribe, what if lots of tribes all descend on the defending tribe and overwhelm it
have you forseen this ? or is this part of it.

What if the defending tribe gets lots of other tribes to help defend ?


The way i would like to see it is if its one tribe versus another tribe, one defending and one attacking.



But it is a good idea

Sark

[EDIT]

actually scratch that, 1 tribe vs 1 tribe would just mean the Mega Tribes always wins wether its defending or attacking.

So there has to be a way for smaller tribes to take on the Mega tribe. so yes more then 1 tribe should be involved whether its attacking or defending.

And its only control points, not the actual tribeland of the Tribe. having lots of tribe being able to throw their hand in either attacking or defending would insure no 1 tribe dominates and would meand lots of to-ing and frow-ing from week to week.

[xyberviri]

I love

Questions For Players:

- What is the minimum size tribe that should be allowed to control a territory? I think BAND is good to start off with.

- How many control totems should be required to claim a territory? I think 4 is a good starting point, possibly 2 or 3 though due to the currently low population.

- How much land should a control totem claim?

- How often should control totems become ‘open’?

- For how long should control totems become ‘open’?

- Should control totem’s alternate being open, or should all of them be open at one time?

- Would you like to see the controlling tribe set a territory to Safe or PvP? Or would you like to see controlled territories always be set to PvP? (Regardless, while control totems are open the entire territory would be open to PvP).

-Minimum Size:
I think band is a good size

-Number of totems:
4 Is a good starting point, Zones are 512x512 (@2x2)

-how much land
100M x 100m

- How often should control totems become ‘open’?
once a week, 7 days from the time the totem comes under control.

- For how long should control totems become ‘open’?
2-4 hours (@ 1/week for 2-4 hours your looking at 8-16 hours of PvP a month for just control points.)

- Should control totem’s alternate being open, or should all of them be open at one time?
Open them all up at the same time, if a tribe can control and secure all of the points then its part of the reward.

- Would you like to see the controlling tribe set a territory to Safe or PvP?
I would like to see conflict zones with a select-able option tied to controlling all of the control points in the zone. IE if you dont control all the control points then the zone stays in pvp, if you control all of them then the zone can be flipped while not in conflict.

- On top of the controlled territories: High danger zones could be full loot PvP with slightly higher resource bonuses, medium danger zones could be random loot PvP with no resource bonuses and low danger zones could be no PvP and no resource bonuses (or the same as medium danger zones).

YES, i would honestly say move away from loot in Medium zones, if i jump a crafter in a medium zone they might have some motive to fight back and even if i kill them they will probably hurt me, which means i in turn might die to the wild life. That alone is reason to not just pick random fights with people.

- Keeping control over a territory could also require some form of upkeep (resources? blood?).

You should use remains, IE animal sacrifices what ever it is it needs to be something that is hard to get and is valuable, heck maybe even crafted goods and food and things like that.

[KeithStone]

Questions:

1. What happens to the control totems if the attacking force fails?

2. If the territory is set to safe, can you place control totems? If yes, how do you kill anyone when trying to take over an area if the area is safe from pvp?

3. How would you gain access if they used nothing but dirt walls with no way in?

4. How do you break down buildings if the area is set to safe?

5. Does this mean that if a tribe captures my area, my tribe can still use the area, we just can't control the settings of the area? (setting it to safe, pvp, etc)

6. What else are we not able to control if we lose the area?

7. Are there any settings that can be controlled if you lose the area to another tribe?

8. Once those control totems are placed, they are stuck on my tribe territory forever?

9. What happens exactly when the 4th totem is placed? (your tribe captures the area?)

10. How does a 2nd tribe initiate a takeover if the totems are already placed?

After these questions are answered I'll be able to give more thought about this system.

[dmyhre]

- What is the minimum size tribe that should be allowed to control a territory? I think BAND is good to start off with.

Agreed. I think band size could even always be the right minimum.

- How many control totems should be required to claim a territory? I think 4 is a good starting point, possibly 2 or 3 though due to the currently low population.

I propose a minimum of 1, with requirements and drawbacks to establishing more. Say two tribes compete for a territory and each hold one totem; they could either capture the other tribe's totem to monopolize the territory, or place a third totem to hold a territorial majority of two totems versus their opponent's one. (Territory ownership could be determined by whoever holds a majority of totems in that territory.) Their opponent could then establish their own second totem to contest ownership of the territory. A contested territory could be lawless, with open PvP, until resolved.
Totems could have scaling upkeep requirements, so that more totems are more difficult to maintain. A vast empire would therefore have difficulty maintaining its sovereignty when faced with numerous local tribes, providing a better opportunity for rising tribes to carve out territories of their own. (Perhaps territory laws, such whether PvP exists, could be established by a voting system, whereby multiple bands could essentially share territorial ownership, each totem controlled giving them one vote). This means competing tribes could stake out more totems in order to gain a majority in a territory, but if they can't support those totems' upkeep, then they have doomed themselves to lose control of that territory.

Summary: Territorial laws could be established through votes. Each totem controlled would give a band one vote. Majority rules.

- How much land should a control totem claim?

- How often should control totems become ‘open’?

Once per week, per territory.

- For how long should control totems become ‘open’?

One hour. This is enough time for concentrated battle plans to unfold.

- Should control totem’s alternate being open, or should all of them be open at one time?

Territories could alternate semi-randomly, with preferred times being whenever the online population peak is for that territory. Therefore a territory could be controlled by a Polish tribe, with PvP running during their own peak hours.
Sometimes two totems could be contested at the same time on the same day, sometimes more. Alternating would allow larger, active, and powerful clans to spread across territory throughout the week, while not needing to defend their captured territory until the next week comes. We might even see roving warbands this way, who don't bother to establish totem defenses, and leave ruins in their wake.

- Would you like to see the controlling tribe set a territory to Safe or PvP? Or would you like to see controlled territories always be set to PvP? (Regardless, while control totems are open the entire territory would be open to PvP)

Absolutely. This would be a great way to bind PvP and PvE servers together. It would be fascinating to see some territories holding a peaceful balance, while others are in constant chaos. Territories could remain safe by establishing numerous totems and using the voting mechanic I outlined earlier.

[millsdo]

I love this. My only concern:

Single players like myself. As long as they cannot get close to my tribe and grief me I like the ideas a lot. I don't mind PVP, I just want to do it on my terms and not be forced into something.

[Xsyon]

First to make sure everything is clear:

- Controlling a territory via control totems would give the tribe power over the entire territory (Zephyr, Round Hill) etc. Safety settings and resource bonuses would apply to the entire territory and not just a zone or the area covered by control totems.

- The control totem areas are just battlegrounds that at first couldn't be terraformed or built on.

- Resource bonuses would apply only to controlled territories while they are controlled.

Answers to questions:

What's going to prevent a tribe from ignoring another tribe’s claim and just finding their own extreme scav area and placing a claim totem there? Ad infinitum.. Where no one really disputes other tribe’s claims but still reaps the resource rewards of their own claims.

Theoretically various tribes could claim separate territories and leave each other alone without contest. This will depend on the players. I'm sure that some players will want to take over other claims.

Also, scavenging resources will remain regional and I will likely adjust the balance to make sure that certain resources appear only in certain zones. This would make it desirable for one tribe to control various territories.

How will claim totems effect tribes existing in the area at time of placement? I can foresee griefers placing totems right up against existing homesteads solely for annoying/ harassing other players.

Players living in claimed territories but not part of the conquering tribe will have to live with the current setting (Safe or PvP) but will not benefit from the resource bonuses (so resources will be as usual for them). They could ally with the controlling tribe to gain bonuses or they could assist other tribes to take over the territory.

I don't see how control totems could be used to grief players.

What happens to the control totems if the attacking force fails?

The defenders maintain control of the territory.

If the territory is set to safe, can you place control totems? If yes, how do you kill anyone when trying to take over an area if the area is safe from pvp?

If the territory is set to safe, it means it's currently under control and no more totems can be placed. When the next 'battle' occurs and a control totem is 'open', the entire territory would be set to PvP while the battle lasts. Uncontrolled territories would always be set to PvP.

How would you gain access if they used nothing but dirt walls with no way in?

You can't terraform on control points. If terraforming is later allowed on control points there will need to be restrictions or way for players to destroy the dirt (allow all to terraform for example) during a battle.

How do you break down buildings if the area is set to safe?

As above. Nothing would be safe when a battle occurs.

Does this mean that if a tribe captures my area, my tribe can still use the area, we just can't control the settings of the area? (setting it to safe, pvp, etc)

Correct. You would need to live with the current setting and you could use the area but wouldn't receive the benefits (unless you were allied with the controlling tribe).

What else are we not able to control if we lose the area?

That's all.

Are there any settings that can be controlled if you lose the area to another tribe?

I haven't thought of anything, no.

Once those control totems are placed, they are stuck on my tribe territory forever?

I could allow the controlling tribe to move or even remove them completely. Also control totems would decay if a controlling tribe decays (in the rare case that would happen).

What happens exactly when the 4th totem is placed? (your tribe captures the area?)

Yes. So initially capturing a territory would be easy. Keeping it under control will be the challenge.

How does a 2nd tribe initiate a takeover if the totems are already placed?

By taking over the existing control totems when they are 'open'.

Upon further thought:

- I think control totems would need to alternate being open. I think it would be too difficult for a single tribe to fend off attackers at multiple control points simultaneously right now.

- I could set it up so that allies could join and attack together with the control going to the leading (largest) tribe.

- Yes, things like animal sacrifices would be good upkeep.

- If at the end of a battle no tribe controls all totems I could set it up so that the territory reverts to free and all control totems are lost, not allowing a tribe to place control totems until the next week (or maybe half a week).

If you still have questions, just ask. This is a general proposal and of course some of the details need to be worked out and probably adjusted after seeing how it plays out in game.

I'm hoping that more current War Server players will join in the discussion. Thanks for all the feedback so far!