War, taking towns & forts

[orious13]

@Arkonick...I know you mean well, but every one of your posts are soo long lol. Yes...I'm a hypocrite.

The game isn't supposed to be PvE.

The game is a building/crafting sandbox with PvE and PvP to compliment those things.

At the moment the plan is to have 99% non-safe zones at least (like nowish)... Maybe 100% with the gates being the "safety" later and obviously not every tribe will be forced to war.

The game has (NOT IS) open PvP/ Full Loot with safe areas and no-safe areas. This is already part of it.

What people are trying to do is find out how War can even mean anything other than for fun (which Xsyon actually said a lot of fights will be for fun...).

CCPs strategy is probably WORSE than the "current" strategy. Clearly with these posts it's not going to work between whoever is on whatever side.

What I think will happen is closer to this:

• "Special Resources" will be available by expansion totems...(maybe certain mobs as well).
• The expansion totems are not "safe" zones and can be sieged/destroyed.
  -Think of a tribe personal SB-Mine situation...very fun...pretty meaningful. Not always under siege.
• Evil Tribes (majority of members being evil<---kicking people from tribe to get a better alignment + Drama much?) will automatically be Warring Tribes.
• Good players will lose alignment if they attack any player on that player's "safe"/encroachment zone and lose a lot of alignment if they steal from it. They lose alignment if they attack any other good or neutral player.
• Non-warring Good (G) tribes vs (G) in sieging will be primarily for fun (like a huge duel).
• Non-warring (G) vs (N) will be like the above with probably a little more playing for pinks involved.
• Warring (G) vs (G) makes them both evil instantly ie. everyone in the tribe gets a slightly less than neutral alignment that makes the average total for the tribe evil status (everyone is neutral, but the tribe is evil).
• Warring (G) vs (N) makes (G) evil instantly.
• Warring (N) vs (G) makes (N) a lot more evil, but not 100%...everyone loses the same X alignment.
• Warring (G) vs (E) and (E) vs (G) will be your full on siege warfare...winner takes all or most or whatever.
• Warring (N) vs (E) (N) becomes more good, but not 100% evil.
• Warring (E) vs (N) full siege... winner might not take everything or whatever.
• Warring (E) vs (E) full siege...all participants risk everything.

....discuss. Get off of the PvE vs PvP. Focus on what the game is already going towards.

[MrDDT]

I've never said I would quit, you did. And you suppose I have some kind of influence on Xsyon which is pretty funny, lol, if I had it wouldn't be set up like it is now.
This is Jordi's game. He said safe zones will stay till we get the buildings (walls, gates) which can replace them. I was fine with it, I don't care if its a magical barrier which gives protection or a wall, although the walls-gates have some serious disadvantages. Probably Jordi discovered these disadvantages so he has changed his mind, and safe zones will stay in game for the ones who wants them. I'm fine with this, and will stay in the game. Warfare will be optional, safe zones will be optional, it sounds all good for me. You should stop to try to change the game to better fit to your taste.

Im not trying to change it just to fit my taste. Im noticing problems before they happen. You cant put safe areas anytime anywhere in the game and think there will be no problems.

Do I have to show you links of where you have said you would quit too? I mean how many times do I have to do this before you admit things?

Anyways, Im 100% fine with buildings and walls that stop people from attacking others, but I also believe there NEEDS to be safe areas in the game too. For players like you, and other people that never want to be hassled by random PVP.
But Ive already laid out how that can be done to make everyone happy.

If you are ok with no magical barriers then why are you crying about 50%/%50? That doesnt make sense. A lot of things you say dont make sense too, I read through some of your old posts and seen how you flip flop on some of your choices.

Im not here just to back up Jordi and say "Good job" "Yes sir".
Im here to give experience in games and how things work. Its his choice on how he puts them into the game.

Its people like you that say it wrong. With the "We need 2 servers then if we cant have it my way". Instead of saying options that fix it. You goto an extreme choice of one way or the other, in a system that wont work for either way for a game.

Clearly you didnt go through and read all those links I posted. You just want to flack talk without doing the work for it.

Its been said 100s of times AFTER PRELUDE SAFE AREAS WILL GO AWAY. Many people know this and knew it. Then it was changed because of people like you. Im not saying YOU alone have a magical power over Xsyon. Im saying its people LIKE you that have caused it to sway to a system that will NOT work.

You talk about EVE online. Look at how the safe areas are done. You dont put a 1.0 sec next to a 0.0 sec. Also you look at how the resources are done in those areas. They have a FULL TIME ECONOMIST working for them. They are using the system I say works. Why do you think that is? They dont have 1/2 the world in High Sec even though 90% of the people according to your post live there. (I disagree with how those numbers are read too btw).
These PVP areas are very active, they are also what push the trading in the game.

Name some games where there is no PVP and its a "sandbox" game. Look at the servers for other games that are more sandbox and look to see they are PVP open. There isnt a safe area anywhere anytime. Wurm you have to earn that right with defenses. THIS is what this game started as. Now you are trying to turn it into ATITD where as you call it "Linear", because that what it will turn into. A building game.
Take a look at games like EVE, EU, and other games with great working Econ's.

Anyways, Ive said enough here for today. Maybe check back in later. Peace.

[orious13]

@Arkonick...I know you mean well, but every one of your posts are soo long lol. Yes...I'm a hypocrite.

The game isn't supposed to be PvE.

The game is a building/crafting sandbox with PvE and PvP to compliment those things.

At the moment the plan is to have 99% non-safe zones at least (like nowish)... Maybe 100% with the gates being the "safety" later and obviously not every tribe will be forced to war.

The game has (NOT IS) open PvP/ Full Loot with safe areas and no-safe areas. This is already part of it.

What people are trying to do is find out how War can even mean anything other than for fun (which Xsyon actually said a lot of fights will be for fun...).

CCPs strategy is probably WORSE than the "current" strategy. Clearly with these posts it's not going to work between whoever is on whatever side.

What I think will happen is closer to this:

• "Special Resources" will be available by expansion totems...(maybe certain mobs as well).
• The expansion totems are not "safe" zones and can be sieged/destroyed.
  -Think of a tribe personal SB-Mine situation...very fun...pretty meaningful. Not always under siege.
• Evil Tribes (majority of members being evil<---kicking people from tribe to get a better alignment + Drama much?) will automatically be Warring Tribes.
• Good players will lose alignment if they attack any player on that player's "safe"/encroachment zone and lose a lot of alignment if they steal from it. They lose alignment if they attack any other good or neutral player.
• Non-warring Good (G) tribes vs (G) in sieging will be primarily for fun (like a huge duel).
• Non-warring (G) vs (N) will be like the above with probably a little more playing for pinks involved.
• Warring (G) vs (G) makes them both evil instantly ie. everyone in the tribe gets a slightly less than neutral alignment that makes the average total for the tribe evil status (everyone is neutral, but the tribe is evil).
• Warring (G) vs (N) makes (G) evil instantly.
• Warring (N) vs (G) makes (N) a lot more evil, but not 100%...everyone loses the same X alignment.
• Warring (G) vs (E) and (E) vs (G) will be your full on siege warfare...winner takes all or most or whatever.
• Warring (N) vs (E) (N) becomes more good, but not 100% evil.
• Warring (E) vs (N) full siege... winner might not take everything or whatever.
• Warring (E) vs (E) full siege...all participants risk everything.

....discuss. Get off of the PvE vs PvP. Focus on what the game is already going towards.

Discuss Plox...
...Pretty Plox...

[MrDDT]

@Arkonick...I know you mean well, but every one of your posts are soo long lol. Yes...I'm a hypocrite.

The game isn't supposed to be PvE.

The game is a building/crafting sandbox with PvE and PvP to compliment those things.

At the moment the plan is to have 99% non-safe zones at least (like nowish)... Maybe 100% with the gates being the "safety" later and obviously not every tribe will be forced to war.

The game has (NOT IS) open PvP/ Full Loot with safe areas and no-safe areas. This is already part of it.

What people are trying to do is find out how War can even mean anything other than for fun (which Xsyon actually said a lot of fights will be for fun...).

CCPs strategy is probably WORSE than the "current" strategy. Clearly with these posts it's not going to work between whoever is on whatever side.

What I think will happen is closer to this:

• "Special Resources" will be available by expansion totems...(maybe certain mobs as well).
• The expansion totems are not "safe" zones and can be sieged/destroyed.
  -Think of a tribe personal SB-Mine situation...very fun...pretty meaningful. Not always under siege.
• Evil Tribes (majority of members being evil<---kicking people from tribe to get a better alignment + Drama much?) will automatically be Warring Tribes.
• Good players will lose alignment if they attack any player on that player's "safe"/encroachment zone and lose a lot of alignment if they steal from it. They lose alignment if they attack any other good or neutral player.
• Non-warring Good (G) tribes vs (G) in sieging will be primarily for fun (like a huge duel).
• Non-warring (G) vs (N) will be like the above with probably a little more playing for pinks involved.
• Warring (G) vs (G) makes them both evil instantly ie. everyone in the tribe gets a slightly less than neutral alignment that makes the average total for the tribe evil status (everyone is neutral, but the tribe is evil).
• Warring (G) vs (N) makes (G) evil instantly.
• Warring (N) vs (G) makes (N) a lot more evil, but not 100%...everyone loses the same X alignment.
• Warring (G) vs (E) and (E) vs (G) will be your full on siege warfare...winner takes all or most or whatever.
• Warring (N) vs (E) (N) becomes more good, but not 100% evil.
• Warring (E) vs (N) full siege... winner might not take everything or whatever.
• Warring (E) vs (E) full siege...all participants risk everything.

....discuss. Get off of the PvE vs PvP. Focus on what the game is already going towards.

I agree with this other than one problem.
Can safe areas be places anywhere anytime? You only talk about "controlling" rare resources, but there is so much more to that. To me thats the main point of the whole thing. Just about anything else to me can be worked out. Its about safe areas anywhere anytime type of thing Im worried about not working. (I understand you keep saying about controlling rare resources but Im talking more than just that).

I think safe totems, shouldnt be able to control rare resources in anyway at all. Not even with a secondary totem type system.
One problem I do see with this system is safe area next to rare resource, with a second totem claiming the rare resource.

[Book]

@Arkonick...I know you mean well, but every one of your posts are soo long lol. Yes...I'm a hypocrite.

The game isn't supposed to be PvE.

The game is a building/crafting sandbox with PvE and PvP to compliment those things.

At the moment the plan is to have 99% non-safe zones at least (like nowish)... Maybe 100% with the gates being the "safety" later and obviously not every tribe will be forced to war.

The game has (NOT IS) open PvP/ Full Loot with safe areas and no-safe areas. This is already part of it.

What people are trying to do is find out how War can even mean anything other than for fun (which Xsyon actually said a lot of fights will be for fun...).

CCPs strategy is probably WORSE than the "current" strategy. Clearly with these posts it's not going to work between whoever is on whatever side.

What I think will happen is closer to this:

• "Special Resources" will be available by expansion totems...(maybe certain mobs as well).
• The expansion totems are not "safe" zones and can be sieged/destroyed.
  -Think of a tribe personal SB-Mine situation...very fun...pretty meaningful. Not always under siege.
• Evil Tribes (majority of members being evil<---kicking people from tribe to get a better alignment + Drama much?) will automatically be Warring Tribes.
• Good players will lose alignment if they attack any player on that player's "safe"/encroachment zone and lose a lot of alignment if they steal from it. They lose alignment if they attack any other good or neutral player.
• Non-warring Good (G) tribes vs (G) in sieging will be primarily for fun (like a huge duel).
• Non-warring (G) vs (N) will be like the above with probably a little more playing for pinks involved.
• Warring (G) vs (G) makes them both evil instantly ie. everyone in the tribe gets a slightly less than neutral alignment that makes the average total for the tribe evil status (everyone is neutral, but the tribe is evil).
• Warring (G) vs (N) makes (G) evil instantly.
• Warring (N) vs (G) makes (N) a lot more evil, but not 100%...everyone loses the same X alignment.
• Warring (G) vs (E) and (E) vs (G) will be your full on siege warfare...winner takes all or most or whatever.
• Warring (N) vs (E) (N) becomes more good, but not 100% evil.
• Warring (E) vs (N) full siege... winner might not take everything or whatever.
• Warring (E) vs (E) full siege...all participants risk everything.

....discuss. Get off of the PvE vs PvP. Focus on what the game is already going towards.

Holy cow my brain hurts

It's nice to give options regarding risk-benefit analyses and would make people think before going to war, but man... this is nuts lol

K.

Personally, I like (G) vs. (G). Low stress, high fun, everybody shakes hands and says good game after the battle.
(E) vs. (E) certainly works for the many who like stress, or have a higher tolerance for it than I do. Cool that the option is there.

However, if (E) vs. (G) automatically means winner takes all, then the risk decision is taken away from (G) isn't it?

Or, should it be that (N) vs. (N) is your (G) vs. (G) since (N) is saying "we don't take sides."
and the real battles are actually (E) vs. (G) battling for keeps over ideology.

In that scenario, (E) wouldn't really fight (E), and (G) wouldn't really fight (G) since they're all of the same ideology. The fight would be good vs. evil, which is relative to their own worldview.

Could (N) open banks and hold artwork for both (E) and (G)?

Geographically, I'd imagine we'd see (E) start to congregate as well as (G), not wanting the other moving into "their" neighborhood.
(N) would be wherever and depend more on diplomacy, and alliances with both sides. Afterall, arming both (E) and (G) is just good business practice, so long as you're not discovered.

[Arkonick]

Clearing one thing up I'm a pvp player. I prefer pvp!!!!! But I will not take part in any thing that kills another players fun and will take up for them if i feel the need too.

All the posting im hearing is to tailor pvp in no way do i see a pve side from you.
I have posted several arguments on this post about things for other players that like pve alone and will leave it at that. I would how ever like to know each of your chars names in the game so when the fighting gets upgraded i can have one good and one evil toon i have 2 account's and I plan on raging war and looting every thing you have every time i find you. I'll even set up camp near you to agravate the hell out of you simple cause you want see the happyness of other players but your own so plz post your in game char name I'll give you PVP old school style.

I'll show you why i was feared on Aion and hatted by all asmo's. When you see me Don't run.

[orious13]

I agree with this other than one problem.
Can safe areas be places anywhere anytime? You only talk about "controlling" rare resources, but there is so much more to that. To me thats the main point of the whole thing. Just about anything else to me can be worked out. Its about safe areas anywhere anytime type of thing Im worried about not working. (I understand you keep saying about controlling rare resources but Im talking more than just that).

I think safe totems, shouldnt be able to control rare resources in anyway at all. Not even with a secondary totem type system.
One problem I do see with this system is safe area next to rare resource, with a second totem claiming the rare resource.

If safety=having a gate and choosing whether or not you can be warred, then kind of yes... (allowing an X hour or day long thing so they have at least some chance make a gated place). There are ways to make people move without having to war them.

The point is the warring is pretty tertiary from resource control (secondary) the way it seems to have been explained.

It would be a better overall system if non-warring could not place expansion totems, but given the possible exploitation, I still think they can make it work okay... It just won't be perfect and it will probably be less in favor of the PvPer. It could take hours of game time ... days... to set up the expansion totem, in which case you could just stop them from making one or continue to destroy one, forcing them to become warring in order to take you out so they could chance some peace later. The totem itself is an optional risk that could make many non-warring people, become warring.

Holy cow my brain hurts

It's nice to give options regarding risk-benefit analyses and would make people think before going to war, but man... this is nuts lol

K.

Personally, I like (G) vs. (G). Low stress, high fun, everybody shakes hands and says good game after the battle.
(E) vs. (E) certainly works for the many who like stress, or have a higher tolerance for it than I do. Cool that the option is there.

However, if (E) vs. (G) automatically means winner takes all, then the risk decision is taken away from (G) isn't it? Yeah but they are sworn enemies. If anything G vs E in any form should designate the second highest reward...imo.

Or, should it be that (N) vs. (N) is your (G) vs. (G) since (N) is saying "we don't take sides."
and the real battles are actually (E) vs. (G) battling for keeps over ideology.
(N) vs (N) and (G) vs (G) could probably be the same in the fun since...and the (E) vs (G) yeah it could be that way as well ...sworn enemies

In that scenario, (E) wouldn't really fight (E), and (G) wouldn't really fight (G) since they're all of the same ideology. The fight would be good vs. evil, which is relative to their own worldview.
(E) tribes are not on the same team...it's like bandits vs pirates. (G) tribes can defect, so I guess I meant that the (G) tribe who initiated the war would be (E) not both of them.

Could (N) open banks and hold artwork for both (E) and (G)?
Sure...lol. Free trade posts.

Geographically, I'd imagine we'd see (E) start to congregate as well as (G), not wanting the other moving into "their" neighborhood.
(N) would be wherever and depend more on diplomacy, and alliances with both sides. Afterall, arming both (E) and (G) is just good business practice, so long as you're not discovered.

Clearing one thing up I'm a pvp player. I prefer pvp!!!!! But I will not take part in any thing that kills another players fun and will take up for them if i feel the need too.

All the posting im hearing is to tailor pvp in no way do i see a pve side from you.
I have posted several arguments on this post about things for other players that like pve alone and will leave it at that. I would how ever like to know each of your chars names in the game so when the fighting gets upgraded i can have one good and one evil toon i have 2 account's and I plan on raging war and looting every thing you have every time i find you. I'll even set up camp near you to agravate the hell out of you simple cause you want see the happyness of other players but your own so plz post your in game char name I'll give you PVP old school style.

I'll show you why i was feared on Aion and hatted by all asmo's. When you see me Don't run.

The game was never PvE or PvP focus. There's already a PvE (needs a little work still however) and a crafting component, right now we're talking about the PvP one which isn't there. The game was also supposed to have safety only in the tribe area, meaning the most of the game is PvP-able anyway. The choice for PvP was for war or not and if you wanted to live in safety. The wilderness is not safe. Bottom line, the game is not a PvE game or a PvP game. It is a crafting/building game, where most of the playable area is free for all, resources can be "contested", and war might be possible. Also adding that War will be optional (Non-pvp in other words).

There are a lot of components that benefit the non-pvp player, but the game isn't a PvE game. One must make the distinction between PvE and non-pvp. They are not the same.

[Jadzia]

Do I have to show you links of where you have said you would quit too? I mean how many times do I have to do this before you admit things?

Yes, please do. At least one link.

If you are ok with no magical barriers then why are you crying about 50%/%50? That doesnt make sense. A lot of things you say dont make sense too, I read through some of your old posts and seen how you flip flop on some of your choices.

Huh ? I'm fine with the current setup. The conversation is about your suggestion, which has parts I don't agree with. I agree with developers placed safe zones and PvP zones. Give equal rights for both type of player and it will work well.

But again, I'm fine with the plans. You are the one who try to change it, though you call it 'noticing problems', lol. Let's give a chance to Jordi and see if his plans can work.
I do believe that separated areas would work much better for the game, but I'm willing to try the way he plans it.

@orious: I guess you are right and they plan something like that, although they never announced how alignment system will be merged with the warring system. Your version sounds good.

[MrDDT]

Yes, please do. At least one link.

http://www.xsyon.com/forum/showthrea...ll=1#post79652

No one can prove any numbers, no one can say that he/she represents the community. Some vocal person on the forum doesn't represent anything. If Jordi ever wants to know his customers' opinion he has to make a survey by email, like the one he already did. Thats the only way to know how players really feel about this question.

He promised that he won't force us into a war game, where the original city totems can be attacked even if the owner don't want to participate in it. I bought the game knowing this, I hope he will stick to his word. This is a gamebreaker issue for me and many others, if he does decide to make a wargame then its time start a new server for the ones who don't want it.

[Jadzia]

http://www.xsyon.com/forum/showthrea...ll=1#post79652

And where do I say I'd quit ?