Some ideas to balance siege, territorial claiming and stuff

[razfen]

Ever given a thought of implementing eve online's way for controlling territory? A quick rundown of my ideas:

• Village claims could only be built at certain locations, set at world gen (so vclaim locations are LIMITED, thus limiting the chance of vclaim griefing).
• Claims are indestructible when outside of their "vulnerability window", which is a time that is set at the moment of the claim's creation. Editing the vulnerability window may incur a 24-48h vulnerability before the new setting gets active. This is so that claims could only be sieged when the village is active (it would be sane to set the window to when the village is active).

Something extra for kingdom WARS:

• Kings have the option to declare war on another kingdom.
• While the war is active, crimes against the war's participants leave no scents, participants cannot kill eachother, but instead players defeated in battle reduce the authority of the kingdom. Once authority drops to 0, kingdoms become siegable.
• The war slowly drains authority from the kingdom initiating the war.

[Sevenless]

Ever given a thought of implementing eve online's way for controlling territory? A quick rundown of my ideas:

[*]Village claims could only be built at certain locations, set at world gen (so vclaim locations are LIMITED, thus limiting the chance of vclaim griefing)
[*]Claims are indestructible when outside of their "vulnerability window", which is a time that is set at the moment of the claim's creation. Editing the vulnerability window may incur a 24-48h vulnerability before the new setting gets active. This is so that claims could only be sieged when the village is active (it would be sane to set the window to when the village is active).

Something extra for kingdom WARS:
[*]Kings have the option to declare war on another kingdom.
[*]While the war is active, crimes against the war's participants leave no scents, participants cannot kill eachother, but instead players defeated in battle reduce the authority of the kingdom. Once authority drops to 0, kingdoms become siegable.
[*]The war slowly drains authority from the kingdom initiating the war.

1) -1 Please no. I love the freeform building haven has, few games are as sandboxy as this.
2) +1 Vulnerability windows of some form have been suggested before. Depending how it's worked, I feel it's a possibility for inclusion in the siege system.

3) +1 Neat, I've thought of something along those lines as well. I think some form of resource to encourage fighting, possibly with timers to ensure participants know when to show up, would be cool. I made a pretty big suggestion along these lines back before the KO>hearth modification.

[2d0x]

• Village claims could only be built at certain locations, set at world gen (so vclaim locations are LIMITED, thus limiting the chance of vclaim griefing).
• Claims are indestructible when outside of their "vulnerability window", which is a time that is set at the moment of the claim's creation. Editing the vulnerability window may incur a 24-48h vulnerability before the new setting gets active. This is so that claims could only be sieged when the village is active (it would be sane to set the window to when the village is active).

A la player-owned islands in Legends of Aria (ex-Shards Online), Arcfall, etc.?

[meus]

Ever given a thought of implementing eve online's way for controlling territory? A quick rundown of my ideas:

[*]Village claims could only be built at certain locations, set at world gen (so vclaim locations are LIMITED, thus limiting the chance of vclaim griefing).

[*]Claims are indestructible when outside of their "vulnerability window", which is a time that is set at the moment of the claim's creation. Editing the vulnerability window may incur a 24-48h vulnerability before the new setting gets active. This is so that claims could only be sieged when the village is active (it would be sane to set the window to when the village is active).

Something extra for kingdom WARS:
[*]Kings have the option to declare war on another kingdom.
[*]While the war is active, crimes against the war's participants leave no scents, participants cannot kill eachother, but instead players defeated in battle reduce the authority of the kingdom. Once authority drops to 0, kingdoms become siegable.
[*]The war slowly drains authority from the kingdom initiating the war.

First, trying to prevent "vclaim griefing" doesn't go very well together with "villages being invulnerable when inactive". I doubt anyone really believes that the active villages are the ones made for griefing or trolling or whatever.

And second, a declaration of war against a kingdom making both parties immortal and leaving no scents??? If one party can reliably keep killing their enemies (which would lower the authority as proposed) why would they try to make their enemies immortal and let them thieve and destroy and whatever for free? Instead just eliminating the opposition would suffice.

[Sevenless]

I interpretted that as draining auth in return for no scents left personally. I don't think that's unreasonable except there's not a ton of incentive to actually fight instead of just hiding given that mechanic.

[2d0x]

3) +1 Neat, I've thought of something along those lines as well. I think some form of resource to encourage fighting, possibly with timers to ensure participants know when to show up, would be cool. I made a pretty big suggestion along these lines back before the KO>hearth modification.

I would prefer the game events: the emergence of special temporary fortresses for the siege, mob attack and so on. And the reward to participants is special items that can be collected and exchanged for something unique and valuable.
With game events, no one will be hurt senseless. Everyone can participate in the fun. And for debugging the combat system, this could be useful.

[Sevenless]

3) +1 Neat, I've thought of something along those lines as well. I think some form of resource to encourage fighting, possibly with timers to ensure participants know when to show up, would be cool. I made a pretty big suggestion along these lines back before the KO>hearth modification.

I would prefer the game events: the emergence of special temporary fortresses for the siege, mob attack and so on. And the reward to participants is special items that can be collected and exchanged for something unique and valuable.
With game events, no one will be hurt senseless. Everyone can participate in the fun. And for debugging the combat system, this could be useful.

I had something along those lines, but simpler. Basically a little battle arena that spawns, and allows two teams of 5 to fight over it. Winner gets to claim the resource. I'm not so sure about fortresses and mobs, that's starting to be a lot of dev hours.

[2d0x]

I had something along those lines, but simpler. Basically a little battle arena that spawns, and allows two teams of 5 to fight over it. Winner gets to claim the resource. I'm not so sure about fortresses and mobs, that's starting to be a lot of dev hours.

True, the creation of events is not a matter of one minute. But, in my opinion, events or dungeons are still needed in such games. This can happen not on the main map. For example, opening a portal at a certain moment.

[Sevenless]

I think pocket dimensions (or portals, I just like that name for them) have good potential use for haven mechanics. It lets the devs do interesting things without needing to A) reset the world on their introduction and B) allow modifications without needing to muck with the main map's balancing.

Not so sure I agree with "dungeons" though. I don't really feel that fits haven's world personally.

[jorb]

Not so sure I agree with "dungeons" though. I don't really feel that fits haven's world personally.

Ooops, did add that.

I don't want to have fixed village locations.