My PvP Idea

[willbonney]

Hmm interesting concept. But surely the declaring war button is daft, because while the aggressors are out of camp, any other tribe could trot along and kill the aggressors totem without the silly declaring war process. I also noticed you excessively use inverted comas in all your posts. Your starting to remind me of Dr Evil.

Untrue Atreyu. Only those that also are "Vulnerable" would be able to even touch the totem. And with a large HP, it would take a LOT of players to actively attack the Aggressors totem without siege weapons to cause much of a dent in it. And if they do, well then, it's up to the Aggressor's Tribe to also defend their own Totem.

No reward without the risk, no pain, no gain.

[willbonney]

Too scripted. A wardec and time value before the actual siege is the only thing I agree with. As much as you guys get butthurt about Darkfall, their siege system is pretty good.

Territory conquest should be a part of it. That keeps tribes dynamically moving around the map with a purpose. Your idea of just looting and pillaging could cause very stagnate gameplay.

FYI...

"Some players are imagining 'safe switches' that can be turned on and off. That's not part of any plan." - Xsyon

I've read that a few times today too JCatano, but I also know that Jooky listens to the community on stuff, and "adapts" his way of thought accordingly.

[Doc]

Well, skimmed it only, will probably go in detail later, but few of quick suggestions:

1. longer vulnerable periods
2. "preparation time" (week(s)) before you can siege someone in which some objective has to be met, i thought about "build siege weapons" that would be major undertaking, and since you are vulnerable during the period it makes you protect your advancement as well
3. "conquer modes", can switch pillage/full conquer. Prolly pillage would have lesser objective to achieve in preparatin time/shorter preparation time
4. risk for attackers - defending tribe dont need to do anything but successfully defend. Win/lose conditions apply equally to both for acheving/failing their task, if attackers fail, defenders get full rights to pillage/conquer their land

[willbonney]

The "vulnerable" setting is free to set by anyone, it is just a requirement for "Declaring War." You then remain vulnerable for at least 24 hours. The vulnerable deal is just the setting to kill others who are vulnerable on their land, and vice versa. Being "vulnerable" however also leaves you open to have "War Declared" on you.

Disagree with number 4 there, Defenders should only get pillage/conquer rights based on if they were able to "destroy" the attackers Totem. The Defenders "win" keeping their land Defended, it is the risk you take by having claimed land, and having your totem set to "vulnerable" in order to kill others on their lands, or trying to declare war on others.

[Larsa]

Sorry, Willbonney, with all respect, I believe your suggestions don't address the problem and the recent discussions. Your suggestions are about a future tribe vs. tribe warfare system, but that's not what all the recent discussions were about. The recent threads are created by players that want more FFA PvP in the current game (a.k.a. no safe zones). The people objecting to that want less FFA PvP in the current game (a.k.a. no ganking and griefing).

I have to say that in my opinion Xsyon (with all due respect to Xsyon, I think he does a stellar job), in his post from today, didn't get to the core of the discussion too. No small wonder, he didn't have a chance to read through it and, seeing the time of his post, he might have been tired at that time.

In my opinion the core of the discussion is:

- A number of current players want Xsyon to become a better Darkfall, let's call it Darkfall 2.0, with more sand than the original, but still Darkfall. A game that exists to provide it's players fighting opportunities.
- A number of current players want Xsyon to become almost anything else but not Darkfall. These people do not think about a MMORPG as a game with the sole purpose to provide fighting opportunities.

There is no middle ground.

[willbonney]

Hmm, Larsa...this is the "Suggestions and Tweaks" section of the forums...pretty sure he wants "Suggestions" about the future of the game too...not just what's going on in the Prelude section.

If I can throw in some suggestions that could be used now to give some people want they want, as well as incorporate that same system into a future system, koodos to me right?

[Doc]

Just to add to my no. 2, objectives can be done only by tribe members, and during preparation time tribe cannot accept/kick members. If alliance is in question, same applies to alliance.

The general idea is to have "pillage" as main tribe warfare activity, but make full conquer activity major undertaking, with awesome reward - and equally "awesome" risk for both - defender and attacker.

[willbonney]

agree with that really. The risk involved must equal the reward.

[river111]

Here is my idea I put in another thread. Will I like your stuff, just way too complicated I think. Anyway here is my idea...

I'd be happy with a war totem myself. A ranking member of one tribe, given the priv for it, would be able to move into an enemy tribe territory and drop a war totem. The war totem would have the same radius as thier own tribe has (attacker tribe size here - small tribe would have a small attack zone to work in, large tribes have a large warzone to work in) and would negate the safe zone inside it until it is destroyed. Each tribe would only be able to drop say 3 war totems in a 24 hour period but could drop all 3 at once, or one after the other. Inside the warzone (created by the war totem) everything is fair game, destructive buildings, empty containers, open PK. Once the war totem is destroyed however the safe zone comes right back as normal.

You want some fun in PvP warfare, THIS would do it. Its short, its sweet, it takes planning, it adds surprise. Attackers need to protect thier war totem, defenders need to get rid of it. Its planned chaos but not FFA chaos. Its war.

[willbonney]

hmm, still don't think it will "give the players what they want" really.

As in, there's one side that wants full loot, full pvp.

That goes against the people who do not want to pvp at all.

Now, since Jordi has said, he wants to build a game where everyone is happy, I don't see an issue to let them both play along. Though, risk vs. reward, those that don't do war dec's or go vulnerable, cannot "obtain" a new area through conquest, or "take" other tribe's items and resources through warfare. Once they've used up what they have, or can get, they'll have to get the resources through diplomatic means or trade.

I am fine with the "anti-pvper's." They aren't the people I want to fight anyhow. I want fun PvP, with those that are strong enough to fight back. But I do want a system that rewards those who take the risk of losing their land. I don't mind if it's pure resources, or tribal land take over, doesn't matter to me. I don't really enjoy "pointless" PvP though, where you just fight for the sake of fighting. I want a purpose behind it.

Most of the other systems I have read so far, is all about making it possible for a PvP tribe to go to war with a "carebear"/crafter/or smaller tribe, just for shit and giggles. I don't like that, nor would I want to play that game.

Now, a system in which you must put yourself at risk, to then get some kind of reward. That I like, because it gives a purpose to pvp, but I also would prefer a system in which those that do not wish to partake in it, they are not forced to.

My main mindset when I come up with ideas, is that I know my playstyle isn't for everyone, and there is no "right way" to play any game. We all pay the same subscription/box fees, so we should all get the game how we want. And when I say "we," I mean everyone, the PvP'ers, the Crafters, the Carebears, the players of the game. However, I will never try to get a system in place that will allow the "safety" of Griefers, Exploiters, or Forum Trolls. I don't care what they claim as their alignment, they are "evil" in my mind's eye in the gaming world, and so I want to kill them.