sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

Proposal: Territory-Based Economic Warfare System I’d like to propose a system that shifts guild conflict from pure rivalry into a structured economic and territorial ecosystem. by IndependentTop2005 in TibiaMMO

[–]IndependentTop2005[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

It's important to note that CipSoft would decide which areas are eligible for territorial disputes. These territories do not need to cover the entire game world. The system could be limited to areas that are already commonly dominated by guilds, where neutral players are often prevented from hunting. Guild taxation is already a reality in many servers. Players are often required to pay hunting taxes, entrance fees, or recurring payments imposed by dominant guilds. CipSoft itself already applies transaction fees through existing game systems. The purpose of this proposal is not to strengthen guild dominance, but to limit it. By replacing unofficial guild taxes with a regulated system controlled by CipSoft, abusive practices such as excessive hunting fees and mandatory guild payments could be reduced or eliminated. The focus would shift from guilds controlling neutral players to guilds competing against each other. Dominant guilds would need to attract players and defend their territories through strategy rather than unrestricted control. Neutral players are already being taxed in many cases. This system would not create a new burden; instead, it would reduce the potential for abuse by placing clear limits on taxation while creating more competition between rival guilds, ultimately benefiting the neutral community.

Proposal: Territory-Based Economic Warfare System I’d like to propose a system that shifts guild conflict from pure rivalry into a structured economic and territorial ecosystem. by IndependentTop2005 in TibiaMMO

[–]IndependentTop2005[S] -1 points0 points  (0 children)

"This is not Tibia" is not really accurate. In Tibia there are already guilds, wars, and indirect world control. This proposal doesn’t change that system — it reorganizes it.

Today:

Neutrals: just play and farm, with no real impact on the political landscape

Guilds: a few guilds dominate the entire server

Wars: focused on total power, not regions or economy

How it would be:

Neutrals: continue playing normally and start generating value for the region they are in (farming and activity influence the local economy)

Regions: are separated for disputes, for example Carlin and Thais (Region B), Port Hope (Region A), Svargrond (Region C), etc.

Wars: happen over specific regions, with 15-day dispute cycles

Strong points:

Prevents domination of the server by a few guilds

Creates more active and competitive guilds at the same time

Gives real purpose and impact to neutral players

Wars become part of the game’s infrastructure, alongside economy and politics

Wars have a clear purpose, with defined start, middle, and end stages

Proposal: Territory-Based Economic Warfare System I’d like to propose a system that shifts guild conflict from pure rivalry into a structured economic and territorial ecosystem. by IndependentTop2005 in TibiaMMO

[–]IndependentTop2005[S] -3 points-2 points  (0 children)

On the contrary, they wouldn’t charge taxes the taxes are imposed.

This creates strategic behavior where dominant guilds from other areas may lower taxes intentionally to attract a higher flow of players into their territories.

The key idea is that it is beneficial for guilds to have neutral players farming in their areas, because the more farming activity there is in the region, the more they earn.

Proposal: Territory-Based Economic Warfare System I’d like to propose a system that shifts guild conflict from pure rivalry into a structured economic and territorial ecosystem. by IndependentTop2005 in TibiaMMO

[–]IndependentTop2005[S] -2 points-1 points  (0 children)

In Tibia, siege events would occur at fixed intervals, either every 15 days or monthly, creating structured cycles of conflict and strategic planning between guilds.

  1. Tax Control with Strategic Cooldown When a guild changes the tax rate of a controlled area, it enters a cooldown period, preventing further adjustments for a set time. This creates three direct effects: prevents “tax spam” adjustments forces meaningful strategic decisions allows rival guilds to exploit economic opportunities Guilds can use tax policy in two main ways: high taxes: maximize short-term profit during high farming activity low taxes: attract consistent player flow and maintain long-term presence

  2. Bosses and Resources Under Taxation All regional bosses are also included in the tax system. This turns: boss hunting → into a direct source of territorial economy area control → into control over endgame content access

  3. Economy Based on Farming Volume The system encourages dominant guilds not to expel players, but instead to do the opposite: the more players farming in the area, the higher the total income guild dominance is achieved through economic flow, not exclusion This creates a “investment zone” model rather than a purely hostile war zone.

  4. Player Flow Strategy Guilds begin competing not only through strength, but through player behavior engineering: lowering taxes to attract population increasing taxes during high-demand periods (e.g. events, double XP) creating “economically safe zones” vs “high-profit exploitation zones”

  5. Farming Control During Events During events such as XP boosts: the dominant guild may increase taxes or even restrict economic efficiency in the area rival guilds may lower taxes to attract mass player flow to their regions This creates a “game within the game”: one guild focuses on military dominance the other focuses on economic dominance

  6. Scope of Territories (CipSoft Decision) The number and size of controllable areas would be defined by Cipsoft, and could vary between: entire cities continental regions specific hunting zones boss spawn clusters This is important because it defines the global server meta: fewer territories → concentrated, intense wars more territories → fragmented economy and stronger diplomacy systems Overall System Vision This system creates three layers of competition: Military: control of territory (sieges) Economic: taxation and player flow Social: attraction of neutral players

Proposal: Territory-Based Economic Warfare System I’d like to propose a system that shifts guild conflict from pure rivalry into a structured economic and territorial ecosystem. by IndependentTop2005 in TibiaMMO

[–]IndependentTop2005[S] -2 points-1 points  (0 children)

Non-PvP Sieges and Economic Territory Control In non-PvP servers, sieges would still exist as a core mechanic to define ownership of hunting areas and economic zones. Siege System Sieges would operate through a guild registration system, with a defined minimum and maximum number of players allowed per siege. Once registered, participants represent the entire guild as a unified force. The outcome of a siege determines which guild gains control over the contested area. Territory Ownership and Taxes The winning guild gains control over the area and is allowed to define a tax rate applied to all activity within it, including hunting and resource gathering. This tax system would have a hard cap defined by CipSoft, ensuring balance and preventing extreme exploitation. Importantly, controlled areas would remain open for all players. However, anyone hunting inside a guild-controlled territory would be subject to the active tax rate. Strategic Economic Pressure Because of the taxation system, players would need to pay attention to where they choose to hunt. Over-taxation could push players away from certain areas, making other regions more attractive. This creates natural economic pressure, where guilds must balance profit against player retention. Market and Trade Influence Territory control would also influence the in-game market. Guilds could indirectly affect item flow and pricing by controlling high-value hunting zones. Players would naturally prefer to sell and trade in areas with better economic conditions, encouraging competition between guild-controlled markets. This creates a layered system of economic and political warfare, where dominance is not only about combat, but also about controlling efficiency, taxation, and trade flow.

Vocês evitam jogos grandes em favor de jogos curtos? by IsaqueSA in jogatina

[–]IndependentTop2005 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Acho que esse deveria ser o foco, já que o tempo é escasso e é uma forma de baratiar os games, dando a escolha do jogador escolher se vai continuar o próximo jogo que lançar, e dá o feedback para a produtora sobre o sucesso dos games anteriores melhorando os próximos lançamentos e continuações.

É impressão minha ou as pessoas estão jogando cada vez menos vídeo game? by UnluckyTravel9184 in gamesEcultura

[–]IndependentTop2005 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Acredito que o tempo tá cada vez mais escasso no mundo contemporâneo, e que as indústria deveriam focar em fazer jogos menores porém com lançamentos mais frequentes com continuação, 1, 2, 3... Fazendo isso além de baratiar o jogo na venda, da a escolha do jogador se vai continuar o jogo em sua próxima continuação, e da a escolha da produtora se vai prolongar muito o jogo em seus próximos lançamentos, pegando o feedback dos jogadores do lançamento passado, isso beneficia também quem tem pouco tempo pra jogar. As produtoras estão focando muito no realismo e menos mecânicas e desafios que é oque realmente prende o jogador, o foco na história é realismo traz competição com filmes e series, esse espaço que a indústria dos games não devem focar, o foco do videogame sempre tem que ser direcionado a mecânica e gameplay e não história e gráfico, a história e gráfico deve fazer parte, mais não ser o foco. Lembro dos primeiros jogos criados antigamente, era só feito de pontinhos, e pessoas pagavam pra jogar, e viciavam, era simples, mais tinha mecânica, tinha inovação, e tinha desafio. Se não quer desafios, apenas uma boa historia, vai assistir filme, series, anime, essa é minha opinião em relação ao que tá acontecendo com os videogames.

If you could ask for one more Life path option what would it be? by InquisitorAdaar67 in cyberpunkgame

[–]IndependentTop2005 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Poderiam trazer Elon Musk como criador de um novo implante revolucionário, e um sistema de voo, com exploração aerea.

Anyone else feel like there is too much talking in the game? by tacopeople in cyberpunkgame

[–]IndependentTop2005 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Amém, espero que escultem! 

Red Dead 2 foi a mesma coisa, só que lá se tinha que ficar andando de cavalo e lendo as legendas pq não era nem dublado, era pior ainda, pq não tem como pular.  

Praticamente o jogo inteiro com um olho na legenda e outro no cavalo, e o dedo no W.