Global Big Clans

LazurusHAX

New member
So this may ramble into complaining, but I'd like start off my say I love this game it's fantastic... the clan system is not, I understand it's a pre alpha game that being said why is there no system to protect small clans or at least a regulation on these big clans to prevent these 100 or so clan members. I'm in a small clan and the camping fabricators and hording hard maps is honestly ridiculous this join or die mentality will slowly kill the player base much like Ark.
 
I agree. I don't mind the mentality of "Pay us to be here" and the idea of a taxation but there are so many groups of clan members grieving solo players in the name of taxation. Which really means they are going to kill you and take what they want (BKO I am looking at you, specifically GMoneyBillions). If you are a clan and your members are going around "collecting" a tax, you should be fully professional. State the terms of the tax and we could work together. Instead, however, solos are just zerged and are out numbered.
 

Statix1973

New member
they already get tax of 10% when they have a proxy out, so why pay more tax?
Void disbanned yesterday, we got wiped by the huge zerg clans , cause we did protect solo and small players. butt they kept zerging us every day, BLDX (chinese) Spice and uganda.thye all suck at pvp, they need 5 v1 to win.those zerg clans are just bored, theyunlocked all, they promise you can farm, but at the end you just pvping with them.
 

Jeon

Active member
If you like your small group and will never consider joining a bigger clan, just find a big clan willing to protect you. Therese's plenty in Europe: Spice, Uganda, Saints for example, they have plenty of small tribes or tax payers and they actively protect them inside their medium/hard tiles.
 

Haxoonie

Member
We tried paying a bigger clan to protect us a few times. 3 denied us protection unless we payed ubsurd amounts of tablets, and 2 tricked us by saying they would help, and used information between us to find our location and decimate our fleet. There is little to no diplomacy in this game, and trying is a waist of time. Just stick to the shadows and DON'T complain AT ALL or the zerg zombies will pay your thread a visit and tell you that you suck or that you are to unskilled ( like their zerg hivemind, swarm everything ) skills are the best. YUP don't stir up that conversation. Many of us tried and it was like fighting with a brick wall.
 

Weirdpete

Active member
Heck you could make it a game mechanic. Setup a Tithing system, clan sets their requirements in flots for a 24 hour period. Once completed that person can no longer be attacked by the clan, and pvp activity shows up for that clan much like it would for actual clan members.
Payment is made at the end of the 24 hour period. It could even be built into the tax system. People not tithed (and not protected) are not taxed.
 

VWithnail

Active member
Heck you could make it a game mechanic. Setup a Tithing system, clan sets their requirements in flots for a 24 hour period. Once completed that person can no longer be attacked by the clan, and pvp activity shows up for that clan much like it would for actual clan members.
Payment is made at the end of the 24 hour period. It could even be built into the tax system. People not tithed (and not protected) are not taxed.
How would you eliminate the abuse of the mechanic? For instance, if I went and paid the tithe - would I then be free to pirate other players on that tile with the owning clan being unable to attack me and defend other 'citizens'? If not, how could I defend myself against pirates who came without paying the tithe? Would taxpayers be 'immune to all pvp' to avoid this? If so - why wouldn't the owner clan just set up a system where their crafters joined a subclan and paid their own taxes from mats sold from the owning clans proxy so that they had pvp-immune crafters?

Could I just swing around naked in the owner clans base, hanging on their ships and giving intel to an invading force now that I couldn't be killed? If the protection extended to vehicles, what would stop me spamming indestructible fireflies in the tile-owners bases or ramming their vehicles with my bulletproof dingy just to annoy them?

How would you stop the owning clan having an allied subclan hunt down the 'protected' players and kill them anyway? If the owning clan could 'cancel' the protection, even with a refund of the tithe, so that they could deal with problem-players : wouldn't this defeat the point of the original idea?

I understand the desire to see hard-baked systems for things like this in the game : but they're SIGNIFICANTLY harder to make work than to come up with in the first place. Currently, for someone to grief - they've got very few tools at their disposal. Systems like this unless implemented absolutely flawlessly bring more scope for harm than good, and they become a rats nest of balancing issues for the rest of the games life.
 

Weirdpete

Active member
if I went and paid the tithe - would I then be free to pirate other players on that tile with the owning clan being unable to attack me and defend other 'citizens'?
Technically, but only briefly. Tithing would hold you to not attack people, as soon as you started attacking other players yourself, your own protection would immediately become null, maybe even the location of your attack revealed to the controlling clan.
As far as relative to self defense, I'm fairly sure it would be easier to "flag" players if they have been hostile previously, and allow you to defend yourself against attackers without penalty. An additional power held by officers could be to reinstate a protection if broken defending yourself and the automatic system didn't pick up on that properly. Additionally if needed, this same system could allow officers to possibly blacklist clans (I think greater options, like declaring war on a clan in game, could also work with this system, but for stand alone sake here).

How would you stop the owning clan having an allied subclan hunt down the 'protected' players and kill them anyway? If the owning clan could 'cancel' the protection, even with a refund of the tithe, so that they could deal with problem-players : wouldn't this defeat the point of the original idea?
That is harder, as of course alliances don't have any in-game allowances to them at the moment, and a shadow alliance would still be easily possible otherwise. The system would probably pick up that your alliance members are hostiles in a short period of time, and flag fighting back then as self defense.
The tweak would have to be "What constitutes 'Hostile action' for the tithing member?" I think the best option for hostile actions are obviously attacks, grapples, ramming.

As for putting thought into what you implement, I agree. If you want to implement a system, you do need to sit down and think about it. Where the limits are. What can you implement into the system that benefits and rewards the "honest" player (even if that is piracy) vs a dishonest one (those that might otherwise use underhanded technique to "win" like exploits in the game).

As for currently having greifing options, they may be small (and I mean the options are not THAT small), but they are impactful. People playing any game should be in it to have a good time, but not at the expense of someone else's good time. and if you want to cast a big enough audience to sustain the game, especially one that comes with recurring costs like this one to maintain, some things are going to have to be adjusted, tweaked, moderated.
 

VWithnail

Active member
I'm fairly sure it would be easier to "flag" players if they have been hostile previously, and allow you to defend yourself against attackers without penalty.

----

As for currently having greifing options, they may be small (and I mean the options are not THAT small), but they are impactful. People playing any game should be in it to have a good time, but not at the expense of someone else's good time. and if you want to cast a big enough audience to sustain the game, especially one that comes with recurring costs like this one to maintain, some things are going to have to be adjusted, tweaked, moderated.
I've sliced two parts of your post mate, not to quote them out of context or anything (You know what you wrote) - but 'flag' mechanics etc are always the FIRST thing that griefers get in on in these games. You're swinging at quality tree with your best quality tool, a naked guy swings in deliberately trying to make it so you hit him and thus YOU, not they, are flagged as the aggressor. This type of griefing is currently TOTALLY absent from the game.

The core observation I've made in every harcore game trying to make use of these mechanics is that : the players who MOST need them are the players who MOST suffer when they're implemented. It's a much easier headspace to know that a game is unfair and that essentially 'might is right' - than it is to have the false impression that the game's mechanics are somehow going to make things more fair for some than for others. The latter mindset is doomed unless the game becomes fully neutered and every fight is pre-agreed or arranged with the numbers, gear, walkers, modules etc fully known in advanced and immune to outside interference.

In Darkfall it was guys getting griefed by wardeccing pkers in starter cities or getting killed by nakeds with low dura r70 daggers at crafting stations before the towers got them. In EVE its miners in high sec being suicide ganked. In both those situations there seems to be 3 kinds of people. "Its just the cost of doing business, fair enough", "This isn't actually safe, I'm getting out of here and playing with everyone else" and "This game is BUSTED! This area is supposed to be SAFE! It needs to be fixed or I quit". I've ordered those from, in my experience, the rarest to most common.

There hasn't been a game in history where the owners had the manpower to provide human moderation to deal with the sad bastards who would rather circumvent rules to annoy people than just play the game. Any system reliant on human moderation to ensure 'fairness' within the games limits is doomed to failure, the rules of the game have to be enough. What human moderation is available I want to be spent dealing with reported hackers.

My answer to people getting hunted is to give them more areas to hide in and try to limit the repetition, from spawning in the sand naked, that people out to harrass someone can do. The former is hard at the minute since the devs seem to be conserving cash by lowering their hosting costs (I assume) and the latter is made very difficult by the grappling hook mechanics of the game. I love the high mobility in LO. It's fun to just grapple/fly around, but it means that people can be on you like flies on shit, even from the most disadvantaged spawn option possible.
 

Weirdpete

Active member
The only reason at this point that type of griefing isn't in the game is because it's unnecessary. That guy doesn't have to goad you to hit first, because he can just start hitting you. There's always going to be the people that try and bend the rule, exploiters, but at least here you are making them out to be exploiters, you have said that, under these mechanics, you are being in the wrong. Officially.
It's still a hell of a lot more than a literal, "Do nothing" approach. Which I think just puts people in the exactly same position you describe above, where people get ganked, get zero'd etc, but probably a lot earlier, when the investment isn't there, more likely to leave.
Following that, you can still have greater areas to hide, jeez in general maps could always do with an expansion (I'm honestly surprised that maps that are the same but are otherwise rotated aren't also in the map generation right now)
The most realistic thing toward a tithing would be "Hedging your bets" more than being entirely safe.
I still agree with more space, it IS supposed to be a wasteland after all. But yeah, cost conservation from low pop is happening, and the current grappling hook mechanics seem... untuned? Even if the mechanic is intentional, it's far to powerful right now as a weapon. No durability, rapid firing, not lost on death stun-lock.
 

VWithnail

Active member
I think we're agreeing about the scenario but not about the effect on players responses to it. This could be my own bias of how I respond to things creeping in, but I personally would much rather know ahead of time - there are no protection mechanics, than suffer a loss I wasn't expecting because I was relying on mechanics that essentially don't do anything but add a hoop for enemies to jump through, then decide if I want to keep playing or not.

I think if the two scenarios are at root the same, I'd go with the one that doesn't create a false sense of security in people who wouldn't automatically predict how griefers will use the safety mechanic against them. I can agree to differ though. I suppose if the mechanic is there, even if it's never perfect it can be refined over time - I'd just rather see that time and energy going into the meat of the game instead of a bolt-on safety mechanic that would ultimately become a minigame for the griefers. For the guys who get killed, it isn't "the thought that counts" with safety measures. It either made them safe or it did nothing and their response to it is worse than if it had never been there, in my experience.
 

Weirdpete

Active member
Different teams though.
Getting a new walker is the art team, something like this, code-wise, is small.
Forcing people to jump through hoops to do a thing can be pretty effective though. heh, isn't that what bureaucracy is all about? You make things that you want to prevent harder to just... do.
You can't stop things entirely, but if you can slow things down, we might keep more people.
And I don't want to remove pvp entirely, I want to find ways to incentivize allowing different playstyles to work together like what was advertised as well. If I just wanted giant combat gameplay, I'd still be playing Planetside.
 
Top