The Switch - Lessons from another game

[mrcalhou]

http://www.xsyon.com/forum/showthrea...69-My-PvP-Idea

There you go, you will see that most of it was already considered by certain individuals, although noone else seems to have any desire to actually look for and propose solutions, just rant about...stuff.

(And yah, thread title is not actually mine)

Noone? My thread from a few days ago: http://www.xsyon.com/forum/showthrea...e-zones-and...

[Doc]

most of it was already considered by certain individuals

Noone? My thread from a few days ago: http://www.xsyon.com/forum/showthrea...e-zones-and...

Disclaimer: you count as certain individual if you have put in some effort

[Larsa]

Anything that gives a player the ability to dodge accountability, in an accountability driven game is a huge, glaring, potential exploit.

A large and well organized pvp tribe will have multiple people with 2 accounts (or more)...of course that assuming that we get a game delivered that actually delivers...Second accounts will be used to set up crafting alts. Crafting alts will be set up in quaint little unassuming villages with names like, Springwater Trading Company, Bobs Bed and Breakfast, etc. etc. The mission of these alt towns will be to craft items for the tribes militant branch.

...

The system that is on its way to implementation is worse, as the players will not be able to hold these new 'craft tribes' accountable for the actions of their parent tribe.

Please think about the ways we can abuse a system before it gets implemented...if it can be, we will do it...it's in our nature. Unfortunately.

Yes, you're right, this will happen. There's no way around it, it has happened in every single FFA PvP MMORPG I can think of.

There's also no way to avoid this. If you have a FFA PvP game you will have cheaters and exploiters amongst the legit players. One cannot have one without the other.

[Bear5732]

A large and well organized pvp tribe will have multiple people with 2 accounts (or more)...of course that assuming that we get a game delivered that actually delivers...Second accounts will be used to set up crafting alts. Crafting alts will be set up in quaint little unassuming villages with names like, Springwater Trading Company, Bobs Bed and Breakfast, etc. etc. The mission of these alt towns will be to craft items for the tribes militant branch.

This frees up the military wing of the tribe to act completely without consequence...the logistics that drive their machine can not be shut down, or even hindered, since they are protected.

The system that is on its way to implementation is worse, as the players will not be able to hold these new 'craft tribes' accountable for the actions of their parent tribe.

Please think about the ways we can abuse a system before it gets implemented...if it can be, we will do it...it's in our nature. Unfortunately.

This system is already in place in the game. Neutral tribes craft items that they will either trade or give to Good/Evil tribes in return for protection or other military actions - In fact I am sure there will be many secret wars going where a neutral crafting tribe outfits and resupplies / supports a Good or Evil tribe in a war against an enemy tribe for numerous reasons. While the Pvper tribes with alts are trying to supply themselves, whole alliances of neutral tribes will be formed that can continually provide a constant stream of supplies while their secret allies can constantly war against any tribes.

You better believe there will be huge political actions in this game between tribes - broken alliances, secret ones, backstabbing, stealing, double dealing, spies, treason, its gonna happen - probably already did in beta.

I think this system already in place, is exactly what is needed for a decent balanced pvp game - I seriously doubt it will be of any benefit with so many other tribes / alliances doing it faster and better.

If you want accountability just come back in 9 months when the devs have stated that "there will be no safe zones" - the baby is in the oven

[Dubanka]

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

- your take is very punitive for any aggression. A successful defense is a successful defense. Winning a siege should be very difficult. You are expected to win in the defense. your proposal is designed to deter territorial disputes, except in cases where the attacker achieves a vast numerical advantage, enough to be assured of a win. bad idea. If you want to get some payback, successfully defend then bring the party to my house. To say that the defender and attacker should have the same stakes in a seige engagement is ludicrous.

in general, all i saw in that thread was a plethora of restrictions seeking to make tribal war as difficult as possible, so it happens as infrequently as possible.

in general this has very little do with the purpose of my post...this was not a general 'war' post. This was a, 'incentivizing players to make invulnerable craft towns IS A REALLY BAD IDEA'.

I wont get into theorizing tribal war mechanics, because it's pointless until the devs throw us something to chew on...then ill generate an opinion.

In this case there is plenty to chew on, and it is a very real problem that will occur with the current mechanics in play.

[Dubanka]

If you want accountability just come back in 9 months when the devs have stated that "there will be no safe zones" - the baby is in the oven

Honestly i don't think this will ever occur.
I don't think certain groups in game would allow this to occur.

Even more honestly, i'm not sure that no safe zones is a good idea. Just if you're goign to be 'safe', there should be a trade off for that safety. And, there needs to be a mechanic to incentize tribes to keep their eggs in one basket, and not build a safety net.

[Sirius]

To say that the defender and attacker should have the same stakes in a seige engagement is ludicrous.

This is a very simple point but I think it's going to take some time to get across to people who haven't played a game with sieging.

[Doc]

- your take is very punitive for any aggression. A successful defense is a successful defense. Winning a siege should be very difficult. You are expected to win in the defense. your proposal is designed to deter territorial disputes, except in cases where the attacker achieves a vast numerical advantage, enough to be assured of a win. bad idea. If you want to get some payback, successfully defend then bring the party to my house. To say that the defender and attacker should have the same stakes in a seige engagement is ludicrous.

Aaaand, we are back to sq. 1. You want reward with 0 risk. Noted. I will never support a system where attacker has nothing to lose and defender has everything to lose.

in general, all i saw in that thread was a plethora of restrictions seeking to make tribal war as difficult as possible, so it happens as infrequently as possible.

Exactly. Risk vs. reward.

in general this has very little do with the purpose of my post...this was not a general 'war' post. This was a, 'incentivizing players to make invulnerable craft towns IS A REALLY BAD IDEA'.

I wont get into theorizing tribal war mechanics, because it's pointless until the devs throw us something to chew on...then ill generate an opinion.

In this case there is plenty to chew on, and it is a very real problem that will occur with the current mechanics in play.

Right. Continue to...rant...on stuff. Cause, atm everyone has invulnerability, so your post is either aimed for after prelude - or doesnt make any sense whatsoever.

[mrcalhou]

I think people are thinking about it to much. If the Devs give the game severe item destruction, ala Eve (because a lot of things in Eve work really, really well for games that relies on emergent gameplay for content), then sieging will have enough consequences for the attacking party. The defenders would have the advantage of having Non-player operated defensive structures, like chokepoints and maybe even retalitory structures in the future.

Edit: Because the attackers would have to invest in much more fragile items to stand a chance of winning. Walls are easy and cheap to build. That awesome armor set probably isn't. Relatively speaking.

[Doc]

I think people are thinking about it to much. If the Devs give the game severe item destruction, ala Eve (because a lot of things in Eve work really, really well for games that relies on emergent gameplay for content), then sieging will have enough consequences for the attacking party. The defenders would have the advantage of having Non-player operated defensive structures, like chokepoints and maybe even retalitory structures in the future.

Well, i havent seen anything about severe item destruction mentioned anywhere. It would amount to having all items you wear being destroyed on death.