What Should We Be Fighting For?

[mutantmagnet]

Hypothetical: One clan rules the server absolutely. Noone dares to fight back. They severely limited the option to pvp. So what do you do to enjoy the game? What do they do to enjoy the game when noone willingly fights back?

In this scenario we're in an age of peace. IRL this means we can advance sciences, social studies, economics, etc. As a result, our lives become more productive and enjoyable as we innovate. Nothing in Darkfall allows us to improve our gaming experience during this peaceful period.


NOW scaleback my hypothetical to a handful of clans that control the server. They are practically deadlocked because they've gained parity in terms of strength. They are in a series of border clashes but for the most part full blown warfare like the golden days of pvp are almost gone. How do players pass the time until the big war begins again? How do players within their borders enjoy the game more in this state of relative peace?

Now scaleback the scenario one more time where the portion of land control is completely fractured among dozens of small clans. Your small clan has gained the territory it wants to control and has no ambitions to extend its conquest ambitions. If you are left alone to your own devices for whatever reason how can you enjoy the game when you just finished the conquest game you wanted to play? What was the point of fighting if all you can do now is wait for a bigger clan to steam roll you when they can be arsed to do it?

When people fight real wars it's not done just for the sake of pillaging and looting. It is to ensure their society can advance themselves to make life more enjoyable and suitable for our needs. As a result when we are fighting for resources we are also fighting for the direction our civilzation can take later on.

So what should be the point of conquering lands besides having the opportunity to conquer more lands?
What should be added in the game so we can have fun when pvp becomes more limited inbetween the big wars?

What should we be fighting for?

[mutantmagnet]

When I think about this hypothetical. The one thing that comes to mind is player made content. If players are given the proper tools they can develop things faster than the developers themselves even if the quality maybe lacking.

More importantly player made content taps into our desire to create which can be just as compelling and satisfactory as our desire to destroy.


So far I'm thinking of three ways to do player made content.


Method 1 - Importing clan approved content to create atmosphere for their territory.

When a clan gains control of territory they can create music and artistic graphics with third party apps and import that content which can be seen and heard by anyone entering their sphere of influence.
This could be taken a step further where some imports require the usage of first party mod apps and players can import voice emotes for PCs and voice dialogue for NPCs or animations and spell effects.

The extent to which global imports can be applied will be dependent on the prominance of your clan among others. If you lose power then all those things you imported can be removed by the new clan that overpowered you.


Method 2 - Minigame Mods.

With first party apps players can modify the less interactive parts of the game like npc interaction and crafting/resource gathering into something refreshingly different.


Method 3 - Player made quests.
The modding community is given more leeway to create scenrios. What type of quests they can make is dependent on their race and what faction within their race they support.



All methods would require significant resource accumulation to be allowed to import or create anything in game.

[Durindana]

Part of the balancing process is to ensure that server domination doesn't happen. When it does, it's death - SB proved that.

Even "server" warfare - i.e. fighting between two or three megaguilds for server control - destroys everything because the stakes are so high.

It's Aventurine's job to make pvp reasonably available, by making it reasonably low-stakes when necessary. This is one of the few reasons you can't build just anywhere - some lands will always be under essentially no one's control, which is the way it needs to be

[mutantmagnet]

I'm implying the game might benefit for offering a reason to fighting beyond fighting, itself regardless of the frequency of pvp fights.

After all the objective of any good pvp commander is to try and demoralize their opponent so they don't fight his/her clan.

Right now my best suggestion is adding a pseudo-Civilizations layer on top of the Real Time Strategy layer in the far off future.

[Scully]

We should be fighting for freedom for all Jaffa.

[Burz'Ro]

This sounds like Second Life. It's a good idea, but I don't trust most people to make reasonable mods. There are too many dippies out there.

[BladeofHearts]

You craft, you explore, you trade! That's what you do besides fight. You can craft almost everything in the game, and the world itself is about 20 hours across by mount and boat. If you want to fight for a purpose besides fighting well, I don't really understand you. :P I suppose you could take up your arms and fight for the people players like me will kill for fun and profit.

I honestly don't think a whole civilization idea works well in DF. I mean, there are already minimal NPCs because the devs want to encourage player interaction. I can't really see a lot of benefit in making sure my serfs can read, or discovering new siege weaponry. Darkfall is complex enough without all of that.

[Kaz*]

Fight for the fun of fighting.
You normally go out and raid cargo ships on a day to day basis?

I don't think that the hand full of guilds ruling a server idea is possible to be honest.

I think what you are really asking is if you will be able to play this game forever.
Darkfall will be like every other game, eventually the flame is extinguished and you move on with life. If all you really wanted to do was accomplish (Trade/Fight/Work on Skills) then it's always going to happen. However, if you are into it for the community, teamwork, roleplay, etc. then you won't need all of that other fluff like mini games and serfs that can read.

But hell, that's just my opinion, right?

[H2liveshot]

Im fighting for one of the world stones or w/e they are called.

[mutantmagnet]

I think what you are really asking is if you will be able to play this game forever.


In a round about way that is something on my mind, but my main motivation was to explore the fundamental point of the conquer game.

If you "win" the game or reach the limits of what you want to do through territorial conquest then what's the point of having that territory? The only reason the territory exists is so we can move on to gain more territory.

That probably shouldn't be the only reason to hold onto territroy

Not everyone is inclined in becoming the eGhengis Khan or eNapoleon.

Allowing us to do something else with our resources, to have fun with it as long as we can hold it, would add some depth the game could make use of in the future.

[mutantmagnet]

Im fighting for one of the world stones or w/e they are called.

Well let's focus on that for a moment.

The Word Stones themselves were used to create Agon.

What if players could actually create new continents with those word stones and build it up like the Sims but it is accessible by all players and the creators of the continent is a collaborative project of the entire clan and not just one individual?

Now conquering lands could mean something as it could be required to exploit the existing resources your clan controls before your clan can create this continent.

[BladeofHearts]

There is plenty to do when you conquer land. You can build a huge and a amazing city that you can fill with shops run by NPCs and make a fortune. You can hire serfs and farm the land, growing reagents to sell to mages or food since you need to eat. You can even allow other players to build on your land and then go and collect taxes once a month, threatening to kill them if they don't pay. Darkfall is the kind of game that, should you be willing to try other avenues of play, could theoretically, be played for a very, very long time.

However, I think the whole Word Stone idea is a little overly ambitious. Third party programs that modify the way people experience the game personally is one thing; a function that allows a person to modify the way the whole community experiences the game, is another.

[mutantmagnet]

There is plenty to do when you conquer land. You can build a huge and a amazing city that you can fill with shops run by NPCs and make a fortune. You can hire serfs and farm the land, growing reagents to sell to mages or food since you need to eat. You can even allow other players to build on your land and then go and collect taxes once a month, threatening to kill them if they don't pay. Darkfall is the kind of game that, should you be willing to try other avenues of play, could theoretically, be played for a very, very long time.


Being able to set up laws and shops certainly enhances the political and economical aspects of the game.

Since a player doesn't need to hold territory to engage in these gameplay spheres then the act of playing the conquest game adds depth to them.

So on one hand nothing else needs to be considered because of the valid point you make.

Still I feel that Darkfall would be missing out a lot in not exploring this concept I'm proposing.

No matter what fighting is the only thing that impacts these spheres of gameplay.

You can't add additional depth to the economy game by allowing players to build new technology because if Darkfall allowed that it would probably transform into Darkfall 40k in ten years of gameplay.


Then there's the caveat that the politic game would've existed regardless of the existence of player cities because city politics essentially revolve around territorial disputes with outsiders and land rights for citizens. In this case the borders are more strictly defined by the cities that can be built as opposed to an open pvp game that as players controlling territory under more loosely defined terms.

Allowing players to create their own content in a controlled manner would make the combat, economy and politics even more dynamic than they will be with DF's currently completed features.

You did touch lightly on how much this can make the game more interesting because of the potential abuse. For example, if method 1 was implemented. When a clan gain prominance they could sow further fear and confusion among players by having npcs emote like the NPCs in Oblivion spreading rumors about the exploits of that clan or foul ups of their enemies.

[wertyn]

wow. In response to the op:

I think your ideas are pretty good for a different game, one a lot more massive, with a lot more funding, but that would be way over the heads of aventurine. They've already worked on this game 5 years to make it the way it is, they wont be able to add any of that and make it work as well as you're thinking.

[Stormsblade]

I read the first two paragraphs briefly, and all I have to say is:

I reject the basis of your arguement. You can not limit PvP, when people are more than able to PvP without landholding.

End.

[mutantmagnet]

I read the first two paragraphs briefly, and all I have to say is:

I reject the basis of your arguement. You can not limit PvP, when people are more than able to PvP without landholding.

End.

Fair enough but my thoughts were going beyond the first two scenarios implied.

Besides, to my understanding pvp stagnation has actually occurred in Shadowbane and Eve Online China. In the former game, the megaguilds have been a perpetual detente after they out-exploited and convinced their weaker enemies to quit the game. In the latter, Chinese players from the first Eve server had such a huge advantage in game knowledge over the noobs that they created an ultraguild that locked everyone out of 0.0 space for over a year and effectively limited pvp during their very long reign with a guild size that never would've conquered the Western server.

[Kaz*]

In a round about way that is something on my mind, but my main motivation was to explore the fundamental point of the conquer game...
Yeah I brought that up because that's what I used to think when I was looking for an mmo. (Will this be able to hold my interest for a long long time?) I guess now I just look for something that I know I will be able to enjoy giving my time up for. Nothing lasts forever so I just take whats given to me and try to enjoy it the most that I can.

wow. In response to the op:

I think your ideas are pretty good for a different game, one a lot more massive, with a lot more funding, but that would be way over the heads of aventurine. They've already worked on this game 5 years to make it the way it is, they wont be able to add any of that and make it work as well as you're thinking.

I think it's been something like 7 years actually... But yeah, also I think that if they were to have included something as massive as the ability to create new pieces of land, they would have slipped in mention of it.

[mutantmagnet]

Well keep in mind that I was suggesting this to shape their thoughts on future developments. As I've expressed elsewhere I would like to see expansions improve on the core mechanics of fighting, economy and pve.

By adding things like terrain manipulation considerations for the first, stocks and bonds and player created banks/market institutions for the second and an introduction of faction alignment so players can choose what race and what faction in a race to fight for in the third would give us something refreshingly new and more likely wouldn't be seen as breaking the game.

Now I'm just bringing up something else that can be done in the future.

But this idea didn't just come out of my mind from consideration of this game. The initial discussion that sparked these thoughts a while ago can be found here in the Eve forums. (http://myeve.eve-online.com/ingameboard.asp?a=topic&threadID=693434&page=1#9) It's a worthwhile metagaming discussion on whats the point of taking over territory.

[jordanleroux]

When the OP has half of the posts in a thread = FAIL

[ineluki]

I read the first two paragraphs briefly, and all I have to say is:

I reject the basis of your arguement. You can not limit PvP, when people are more than able to PvP without landholding.

End.

My thoughts exactly.:)

[Uxmal]

all three scenarios will leave the game wide open to politics and alliances which will hopefully end out in war. In open PvP.

[Izure]

Roman armys fought for the greatness of rome and it's IDEA!

[LJZoni]

I'm fighting for all my bretheren who were betrayed and murdered . . .

[Dormouse]

Fun!!!

[stalker08]

It doesn't matter what happens there will always be something to fight for. There will always be someone who wants to change something and some one who doesn't. clan domination will be no problem just because there will be so many other people getting high skills to compete against you. And lets just say that hypothetically clan domination was a problem. I'm sure that it would be no time at all that people would band together to crush the ruling clan.

If your just waiting for the next epic battle or war try spending that time skilling up. Or try messing around with any new content there might be. I think one problem some people are having is that they are getting so excited that in their minds they are saying "What if?". This is going to be the game of game. It will have all the features we only dreamed of until now. I really don't think that finding something to do is going to be a problem.

[Dandune]

When people fight real wars it's not done just for the sake of pillaging and looting. It is to ensure their society can advance themselves to make life more enjoyable and suitable for our needs. As a result when we are fighting for resources we are also fighting for the direction our civilzation can take later on.

I like to think that part of human history is behind us... then again wars for enforcing a certain way of life are still going on though they are called wars for freedom... on foreign soil... hmm such a paradox.:p

Anyway about in-game wars... there will always be people who will piss someone off who will then kill/PK in return... and soon someone will piss off or PK the wrong player who in return will mount a heavy assault back... and then first person might be a member of some rather large clan that will strike back.. voila... war!!... it's fantastic! (c)Hot Shots

[Nackl of Gilmed]

Hypothetical: My face turns into chocolate. Should I worry about the working class rising up against their oppressive masters?

Or, to put it another way, I think darkfall is incompatible with op's social speculations.

[Slisk]

I like your idea Mutantmagnet. The customisation of your land and the embedding of players into the economic, cultural and even geographical landscape of your clans territory is a great idea for layering depth and meaning in the game.

Personally I feel that there will be plenty of meaning and depth to the conflicts that evlove without this added layer of customisability.

Relationships between the clans and the races will evolve and form the player derived history of Darkfall. Enemies will be made, backs will be stabbed, treaties broken and weaknesses exploited.

It won't be long before clan names will be said with venom or pride and the cause for conflict will be as much a personally driven decision as one for land or power.

[travien]

The problem here is the premise of the arguement is flawed. Its not going to be possible for a few guilds to control a server. This is because of the size of the world.

PvP won't be restricted because it is part of (if not the) core of the game, and the devs will do whatever it takes to keep their game alive. Your city won't be big enough to control the globe and I'm sure even if it isn't in at launch, unstability will be added to unwieldy empires (even though I doubt empires this large will truly occur).

[Forgin]

90% of the posts in this thread are tl;dr

[drebk]

When people fight real wars it's not done just for the sake of pillaging and looting. It is to ensure their society can advance themselves to make life more enjoyable and suitable for our needs. As a result when we are fighting for resources we are also fighting for the direction our civilzation can take later on.

So what should be the point of conquering lands besides having the opportunity to conquer more lands?
What should be added in the game so we can have fun when pvp becomes more limited inbetween the big wars?

What should we be fighting for?

Contrary to what some believe, the core of driving force of this game is economics, not pvp. While pvp/full loot are the primary game mechanics that areattracting many players this game is not about pvp for the sake of pvp. Instead, DF is about controlling land and the resources associated with it. This enables/enhances your ability to craft items, that enable/enhance your ability to take more lands. Guilds that are pvp heavy will be going through a lot of gear, and they will need monstrous economic support to drive the warmachine.

pvp is simply the big stick used within the game to exact economic domination.

imo, the most well done 'pvp' centric games are the ones with in-debth and robust economic systems. Essentially people are fighting for control of economics/resources/crafting...

your hypo is flawed because of circular reasoning. It assumes a premise to be true, but that premis itself is the conclusion of the argument (not to mention the fact that the occurance of the premise is virtually impossible)

it assumes that all the guilds in the game are 'content' with their little slice of conquest. Then asks, what now?

Essentially you are asking, "if nobody wants to pvp, why will people pvp?"

Then you offer an additional reason for pvp/conquest as if that reason solves the problem. But the question still remains, "if nobody wants to pvp, why will people pvp?"

Thus, you could have hundreds of 'reasons' to pvp, but if your arguement is, "if nobody wants to pvp, why will people pvp?" the answer will always be, "they won't"

[Muse]

Power.

[Heuchera]

As long as DF does not create any "trammel" realms that created that dominating guild effect on UO, it should not happen in DF. the only other way that could be achieved would be through a big cheater-guild taking advantage of the system/bug so let's hope that is being covered in beta.

but should it happen, it changes nothing, "rulers" will build towns and cities, enforces the economies just like real life while the more casual or less bootlicking players will find themselves some small corner of the map to own, create smaller rp clans and feud rivals smaller rp clans. and since we are bond to have many immature or troublemakers, there will always be in-clan feuds or scandals, blackmails or propaganda that can cause terrible damage, to the greatest of guilds, with nothing more than words.

Archlord was a good (failed) exemple of server domination... but in the end, no one cared much, for most common folks and newbies it only affected pots and rain/snow storms... only a few big guild fighted for castle while the smaller guild competed only to have fun doing what they liked (or grinding...)

[TheVillageIdiot]

Honestly I am surprised that no one has mentioned fighting for the politics of revenge.


Most wars I remember in AC-DT were caused by some clan recruiting an ass-hat who pisses off another clan. When the leaders fail to reach a political settlement, war ensues. I remember much smaller guilds taking down significantly larger guilds.

If the world is large enough, hopefully we wont see the single nation dominating an entire server. Despite massive size of Blood in AC-DT other guilds were able to carve out their own small niches, and fight Blood rather effectively.

[Suho]

Didn't read the whole thread but:

If one clan manages to rule the entire server, I smell some demigod action from the developer side, which will crush them back in to Zerg Heaven where they belong (since only numbers made such power possible).

But when things are nice and balanced, you will be fighting for world domination! (only to get crushed by demigods later on, again.)

And let's not forget, you will be intentionally killing people to piss them off like a true forumfaller (RIGHT?!). So you can forget about peace time.

[Survivor]

1) fun ???

2) land / city locations

3) resources

4) honour within clans

5) items from cities / dead opponents

6) friendly competition between friends / duels

7) To try out new spells / attacks / skills

8) To try out new armour / resistances / buffs

9) To try out new locations for larger battles e.g sand / grass etc.

10) To try out new stealthy hiding places e.g tree / small bush etc.

[tazco]

The fight should go back and forth RTS style, sure you may have to wait for the next big battle but its time to recrute or get supplys. Just becouse 2 clans are waiting to fight does not mean the game should come to a stop.
As for 1 big ruleing clan i can`t see it lasting long, there will be others that will apose the big clan and will slowly bring them down. In true RTS fashion it should take time to divide and conquer. I look at it as living in midevil times
when a king ruled the land (clans being the king) and you had to follow there rules or get a group of people to go against them. In a pvp based game there will always be something to do, people are harder to predicted then a script with X amount of options.

[Dagren]

Correct me if i'm wrong but I think we should fight for the conquest of the world in the name of our own empires!
And obviously for the enslavement and eradication of all those lesser and miserable races (like mirdains) from Agon! :mad:

[Paradiso]

yeah... i wouldn't worry about it too much, OP. i think although your concerns are legitimate, there is enough stuff set in place that i don't think that this will happen. And even if one clan DOES eventually control the server, they will fall. All empires fall.

also, you say what is the point of taking over territory just for the sake of it? well, you could also say "what is the point of playing a MMO?" all MMOs are based on freedom and community and self-improvement. That's what separates them from one player RPGs. in a RPG you progress through the game on a linear path and your goals are given to you. you complete the goals given to you and then you beat the game and it is over. There is no end to MMOs, there is no credit-rolling final cut scene. So your motivation for playing an MMO is simply to exist in this alternate world where you have the freedom to do whatever you want.

basically, people play MMOs because it's fun. So they will participate in the many facets of darkfall because it's fun. simple as that.
after you have conquered your territory or after you are at a standstill with another clan, you will keep playing and keep going because it's fun. you should be fighting for the fun of fighting.

[Ferox]

SM would ALWAYS fight against guilds like this that ruin the balance.. and i'm sure many others would as well..


if one guild alliance did conquer the world, it wouldn't be for long.


as for what we are fighting for... well thats as unique as each player and guild... its a free world with choices.

[Lethn]

World domination isn't going to happen why? Because you'd need to gather absolutely everyone under your flag and the majority of the people here are war mongering bastards who'd rather fight you, burn your cities and take all your loot for themselves than partner up with you which will simply create a conflict within itself.

[mutantmagnet]

your hypo is flawed because of circular reasoning. It assumes a premise to be true, but that premis itself is the conclusion of the argument (not to mention the fact that the occurance of the premise is virtually impossible)

That's why I used the two scaleback hypothesis. I knew the first premise would be improbable. It's the last scaleback that brings my point into focus. When you have land and don't want to take over more land, what do you do with it? The real conclusion I was drawing was that the mechanics to develop on your land are meant to assist you further in gaining more land and that's it.


On further thought I'm off on that conclusion because the items you craft can help you do pve. Barring that mistake it might be prudent to offer an alternative objective in how one can use their land. I've already put forward four different ideas so the possibilities can vary a lot.

I also concede the point that the economy aspect of this game may offer a lot but IMO even that shouldn't stay stagnant. The economy game could be developed even further in the future once we see how we as players work within it.

[Lysandor]

Resources, Pride, Prestige, Wealth, Power, Lore, and...well because we want to?

[Soulcullers]

The OP forgets one very important thing. The average forumfaller is a total and utter barsteward and needs no reason other than "cuz" to farm you to death, destroy all you own and hump your corpse rotten. Most wars in RL are not started because one nations simply wants to kill another for fun. In DF, that's going to be the norm. Forget loot, forget motive, remember playing a game is fun, and the major point of this game is to kill others.

[battlesteve]

Well let's focus on that for a moment.

The Word Stones themselves were used to create Agon.

What if players could actually create new continents with those word stones and build it up like the Sims but it is accessible by all players and the creators of the continent is a collaborative project of the entire clan and not just one individual?

Now conquering lands could mean something as it could be required to exploit the existing resources your clan controls before your clan can create this continent.


There is no way a clan can dominate a server, the map is to big to control.
And besides conquest, the point is to have fun and do w/e. if you can't decide that for yourself than you probably shouldn't play the game.

[Teufell]

What about Clans working with the developers to extend the map to new lands? Looking at the overall lifespan of most games and reaching a number from out of my arse, I'm choosing 5 years, as a good time frame for DF to live extremely well, before population starts to wane. If we go with 5 years and scale back to a 6 month time period that a clan would have to achieve 'victory' in one city or area, then we can have a basis to start from. Granted these numbers are totally hypothetical and could be adjusted easily to fit the growing community and game.

But let's start with 6 months that one clan needs to own a piece of property before they can begin to build an epic monument to the clan. Since the world was hand crafted the help of the developers is needed, and the clan leadership of the above mentioned clan would work with the devs over another 3 months to build and put in game an epic monument. Any time during the 3 month building process, if the city is taken over then the monument is destroyed and the time process for a 6 month conquer starts over. Also during the 3 months of building, the clan would need to spend extra resources and gold, i.e. money sink, to build the monument. At the end of 9 months of coordinated efforts of sieging and defending a city, one clan will have earned the right to build an epic monument that would stay on the server forever. Talk about clan epeens.

Another idea is that of creating new lands to explore. Maybe after a year or two of research certian clans come up with good lore and reasons for the appearance or discovery of new lands. This idea has less shape than the previous one, and I'll let someone else run with it. For me though, for any of these ideas to be really good, you would need to have the influence of the devs, keeping to the spirit of their game.

[Slisk]

I was reading your EvE forum like mutantmagnet, and a thought occured to me. Much of the discussion was centred on how 0.0 space could be controlled by one alliance. The main obstical it seems was maintaining cohesion within a very large alliance where differences in playstyle and motivation ultimately bring the large alliance into conflict with itself.

It may be possible that rewarding successful clans in DF with high levels of personalisation of their lands could create a better unified motivation for clans and prevent the inevitable collapse? Perhaps it would be better to stimulate natural discontent within clans for a more dynamic and changing player world. Allowing theft, exploitation, feudal control of cities and encouraging decentralisation of a clan may well be better for the game.

[Byggin]

It may be possible that rewarding successful clans in DF with high levels of personalisation of their lands could create a better unified motivation for clans and prevent the inevitable collapse? Perhaps it would be better to stimulate natural discontent within clans for a more dynamic and changing player world. Allowing theft, exploitation, feudal control of cities and encouraging decentralisation of a clan may well be better for the game.

I don't agree with either, the game shouldn't set the parameters. Freedom of gameplay should allow the guild drama to unfold without any influence.

[Wreatch]

There is always a/the rebellion.

[Haldred]

There is only one thing to do when any of the scenarios happen. Go fishing and reminisce about the good ol'days and reroll onto a new server!

[Alandar]

You should fight for anything and everything you want to fight for. If you want to become a thief in a peaceful society you can. If you want to go on a killing spree becoming an assasin of sorts you can. If your a starving war vet and you decide to turn to a life of crime looting everyone you see you can do that too. Or if you want to become a mercenary for hire or a bounty hunter, that can be done to. Perhaps you want to form a raiding party and take something back from the overlord that has taken over this world, well you can do that too. You can do anything you want, your imagination decides. Dark Fall just gives you the tools.

[Slisk]

I don't agree with either, the game shouldn't set the parameters. Freedom of gameplay should allow the guild drama to unfold without any influence.

Define freedom of gameplay. People use it as a mantra but never bother to elaborate.

Is it freedom to have every item a guild owns controlled by the one guild leader? Or would freedom be better served by having control of a guilds resources in the hands of the guild's members, allowing for secession, theft, exploitation, bribery and other emergent gameplay elements?

[IwannabeaMahirm]

After reading the first two posts:

After I've secured my goal, I would surely move on to aid my fellow Mahirim and Orks in crushing the Dwarves utterly. That is, I would put my currently unused time into forging diplomatic agreements that would undo the Dwarves, and maybe get some select bits of land in the process. After all, you don't have to own the entire map to OWN THE ENTIRE MAP, so to speak.

[womble]

The real conclusion I was drawing was that the mechanics to develop on your land are meant to assist you further in gaining more land and that's it.


I think they're also there to assist you in *keeping* your land. Maybe your neighbours *currently* are also satisfied with their conquests, and are prepared to live in amity, but what if they get stomped by the next evil baron over who wants your productive mines, fields and smithies? Then you're going to have to be able to defend yourselves against superior numbers and possibly a superior resource base. And developing the defensive structures and logistics to do that is going to cost a pretty penny, with another pretty penny to keep it up to scratch.

Not to mention needing to patrol the wildlands to keep the bandits (both player and NPC) and goblins from becoming a threat.

I think there will always be someone who wants what you have.

[Ashikata]

What should we be fighting for?

Fun.

[mcm]

The fact that this question has been asked, and that the answer isn't "new gear! is the best mark of how this game will be different from most all the rest... and none too soon.

[licantropo]

I specially will not fight for nothing than to life as a crafter :-).
If needed i will fight to conserve my freedom.
:cool: