Guild v Guild combat, Sieges, World, Influence, Arena, Rewards

[Combatman12]

The end game should have a lot going for guilds, they are a great way to extend the lifetime of the game and can create a dynamic world.

Sieges for important territory of valuable resources could be implemented for the largest guilds, allowing them priority over said resources and tax on market transactions occurring in the area. The actual mechanics of sieges could be lifted or innovated from similar concepts like BDO.

For the world, individual PvP between guild members could grant the player fame in the guild, allowing them to be noticed by guild leaders (Being given ranks/rewards from leaders). If guilds could declare war against other factions, kills could grant guild tokens to be used alongside in-game currency to purchase siege weapons or camps building up to a final battle.

Guilds could control what areas are used for what, creating residential areas, infrastructural areas, trading districts, etc. This wouldn’t be hard to code, beacon like barriers that display certain areas named as certain districts wouldn’t actually do anything but display what areas are for what. The way to enforce this would be up to the guild, allowing no inherent way to force areas to be used for specific situations could create a police job, furthering the economy. One thing must be present, when a player places a beacon in a guild area, a notification for the player that would say that there is a certain purpose for the area because the guild could remove the beacon if they don’t believe it suits the purpose. To balance this out the guild would have to have influence/guild tokens to be able to ‘restrict’ the area.

Kills could count towards or against influence in an area, like a pie chart the influence of factions would be split by percentage. It could be determined by player count, kills, $$$ investment, blocks placed by players, and other factors. Influence could give a general idea of the leading factions. On launch most areas would be mainly influenced by the central guild, other guild would quickly be able to establish influence and eventually surpass the central guild’s influence.

An arena could be designated in major cities of guilds that could be used for entertainment for spectators and competitors, earning the guild money and more influence. Other matches could be held as another way to settle disputes, individual matches with stakes, two guilds could use a champion each, representative of the guild and fight for disputed land.

Guild rewards (for beating other guilds/having a large influence) could include additional infrastructure for guild use and a general array of random useful tools that could be community suggested. Control of other guilds (partly/completely,permanently/temporarily).

[Thorbjorn42gbf]

@Combatman12

Sieges for important territory of valuable resources could be implemented for the largest guilds, allowing them priority over said resources and tax on market transactions occurring in the area. The actual mechanics of sieges could be lifted or innovated from similar concepts like BDO.

But wouldn’t this weaken the safety of the beacon system as it have been argued time and time again? Allowing sieges would make beacons non abselute, and encourage more minecraft like super bases instead of going for an goodlooking build.

Beacon sieging

Since I´ve found no thread regarding to this topic i decided to create a forum account and make one by myself. In most of the games i play i focus on the PvP part of gameplay(like bg/arena in WoW, Campaign PvP in The Elder Scrolls Online and many other MMOs/Sandbox games) therefore im planing to be a PvP player in Oort online aswell, So i´ve got some thoughts how a beacon siege could work: 1. The attacking group/guild has to place something like an anti-beacon device near to the beacon bord…

Poll : PVP - Would you like a siege system?

So, here now a poll that is more neutral and includes the ideas posted in the topic about sieging (in difference to the other poll). If you want to read about it, just have a look at the link under the poll Do you want to have a system for sieging in Oort, and if yes, how should it be handled? If I way “attack” a beacon this includes a mechanic for declare a siege before it stats (like a delay of 30-60). poll And here now the topic about the question. Yeah it is long, but if you realy w…

Closed Poll: PvP Depth: Beacon Sieging

There is a whole discussion about being able to attack and destroy beacons and the the area they protect. I personally don’t support the notion at all, but I want to see how the playerbase views this idea. Yes, I want to be able to annoy people by destroying their hard work in a siege! Yes, I want to attack other people’s homes, assuming there is beacon regeneration of course, they may not have a functional home for like 4 hours but it’ll grow back. No, it defeats the purpose of beacons entire…

@Combatman12

For the world, individual PvP between guild members could grant the player fame in the guild, allowing them to be noticed by guild leaders (Being given ranks/rewards from leaders)

As opt in pvp exist already creating mechanics for this is not really necesary, if another guild member wins a lot of fights this would naturally be noticed by the guild leader if this is something that have his interest?

@Combatman12

If guilds could declare war against other factions, kills could grant guild tokens to be used alongside in-game currency to purchase siege weapons or camps building up to a final battle.

Refer to my earlier comment about siegeing.

I am not really sure what exactly you are trying to say with the last part could you clarify that a bit?

[KuroKuma]

I would say all of this would be a fun 1 month (or so) event on a seperate world after some guilds already have been established in the game.
Clearly something for after 1.0.

[Combatman12]

Sieges could have a maximum penalty for losing, not including the ability to remove beacons, this could include:

• Tolls/Tax/Economic Penalty
• 50% Resource Tax

If you’re talking about the actual siege, there could be a full regeneration of the structure afterwards, there might need to be approval of an admin when creating a ‘castle’ or other similar structure before you can use it. It would be something that would need a lot more thought on it’s own to think about balancing, stages of siege, working in already existing pvp mechanics etc.

I wasn’t talking about player versus player beacon warfare, I’m talking about guild stronghold vs guild stronghold. If that clarifies it

[Clexarews]

@Combatman12

I wasn’t talking about player versus player beacon warfare, I’m talking about guild stronghold vs guild stronghold. If that clarifies it

Well if you have a build with no beacon, regeneration will win every time. So I think mentioning a build implies a beacon is involved.

[GyroParadox]

I like the way your heading with this, but I think your taking a different approach. GvG is certainly an option i would like to see, but it should only really take place between those guilds. So, for example, if two guilds declare war, members of those two guilds would be allowed to kill only the members of the rival guild, and would be able to capture and control guild beacons.

GvG: Guild vs Guild battles could be started if the two were pushed into a conflict for resource, money, or just world domination. A guild that is settled on a world would have to defend their guild controlled beacons and plots, while a guild from another world would have to dig in on the world and attack. Only guild members that are at war with each other would be able to hurt each other, so that players are not just running around and killing every one they see. If an attacking guild is able to capture a guild beacon, they can now control it and the immediate area.

PvP: It could work like a world based matchmaking, where players access a matchmaking queue and Warp to a pre-made and random Arena. Entering the Arena Queue would require an entrance fee, that is collected in an pot that is awarded to the top competitors. Also, the Arena building system could allow players to create unique, creative, and themed Arenas for that world. The matchmaking would require the maps to be on that world however, and some kind of system would have to be implemented to make sure someone didn’t just make a troll map where everyone dies.

I hope this has helped, and am happy for everyones input. While I dont want pvp in everyday parts of life for Boundless, completely excluding it removes as significant amount of potential for the game.

[Combatman12]

I think “overworld” PvP can still be a thing, but there would be some form of karma to stop players from going on mass killing-sprees. You would lose karma for starting fights, not much, more for killing (if you started the fight). This would be an indicator for all (and your guild) that you have bad karma. You don’t get bad karma in arenas or GvG. Another way to punish these players with bad karma is if they reach a certain bad karma threshold they could have a bounty, with the rewards for killing the player going towards the guild influence etc in the area of the one who killed the player with a bounty as well as an economic incentive for the player.