Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 19
  1. #1

    Tribes are not started with 20+ people.

    They are almost always started with just a few and over time they build up to large numbers.

    You're looking at data about tribes based on a period over time and not what it takes to start a tribe in one day.

    These restrictions about tribes doesn't make sense.

    It's being setup in a way that benefits what most people will carll Zergs and the only tribes in this game that are zergs right now are the ones from beta.

    My tribe has an advantage, we've been around since beta - this game shouldn't cater to tribes like this.

    Everyone on day 1 of luanch day should have the same oppurtunity to build and grow with this game. I don't understand why a decision that only benefits tribes who have been around since before the game has even luanched would be included in day 1 of launch day.

    It doesn't matter how much we helped out with testing or finding bugs, etc - you have to be fair to everyone on launch day.

    You can deminish in tribe status, but you can't grow with player count - that doesn't even make sense to me imo.

    We really need to rethink how tribes work.

    This is how it should be:

    There can only be tribes in this game, your territory grow's based on member count. Max radius from another tribes border when setting a totem = 100m.

    In a land rush it's about getting land, if you feel like your area is over crowded go somewhere else.

    Allow tribes to be started with 1 person.

    Edited: Do not allow tribes to place a totem within 50m of a scrap pile, this prevents exploits by large tribes that could have solo tribes started to claim up all the scrap piles. (tribe border can engulf a scrap pile if the tribe grows large enough and there is not an existing tribe in your way.)

    Do away with settelements, bands, and clans, please!

    This allows tribes to grow and shrink based on member count and it still keeps solo to small group players confined in a smaller area that can be picked for resources outside their actual owned territory.

    And then the only thing that would need to be done is make it so that unsubbed accounts drop from the totem so that if a solo, small group, or large tribe goes inactive then their totem goes away.

    Max tribe radius would still be 200m.

    Radius would not overlap another tribe, which means your tribe growth could be blocked as it should in a resource heavy and territory control heavy game. However, you still have the ability to control a minimum of 100m radius, which is 200m across your owned territory.

  2. #2
    Xsyon Citizen
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Location
    Intensity in ten cities
    Posts
    440
    Gonna have to substantially agree with this. What's missing is a mechanic that allows one tribe type to upgrade to the next higher type automatically by reaching a player threshold, but then, this would interfere with the expansion mechanic they've cooked up.

    The idea that the top tier of settlement types can only be achieved by tribes that already have 20 people signed up by 9am on March 11, a work day several days before launch, is... well... troubling, to say the least.

    Edit: to clarify, I'm agreeing that this new system is questionable, not necessarily endorsing Keith's suggestions.
    [SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]

    Ring the alarum-bell! Blow, wind! come, wrack!
    At least we'll die with harness on our back.

    –Final words of Lord Macbeth, King of Scots, before accepting his fate

  3. #3
    I've made some edits/additions/revisions to how it should work, please read it again.

  4. #4
    IMO, a better option would be:

    1: Require something like a 5-10 membership range to create a tribe. Nothing too onerous, but enough to warrant the extra space.
    2: Make a set range for all tribes based upon space concerns... taking into account long term and current concerns. Say... 75-100 units or so.
    3: Plan to introduce Tribal warfare sooner rather than later (preferably by the end of the 2 included months).
    4: Allow successfully sieged tribes to have their totem (but not their tribe) added as a sub to the primary totem, expanding the range of influence to include the diameter of both totems.

    That allows for territory control, expansion for those that have the might and resources to enforce their claims, and keeps the opening tribal territories under control. Later on, adding transportation between tribal totems could create both a crafting and militaristic advantage to taking territories... and one of the nice things about a game like this is that it doesn't cost a whole lot other than a bit of pride for the defeated to drop a new tribal totem elsewhere.
    Bleed for me.
    [SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
    In order to know virtue, one must first acquaint themselves with vice.

  5. #5
    In general, I agree, but:

    Quote Originally Posted by KeithStone View Post
    your territory grow's based on member count. Max radius when setting a totem = 100m. [...]
    This allows tribes to grow and shrink based on member count and it still keeps solo to small group players confined in a smaller area that can be picked for resources outside their actual owned territory.
    Don't know. If some of the members leave, the tribe area will shrink and others will be left outside of the tribe area. Poor bastards...

    Different suggestion, a bit too advanced, but anyway:
    - Totems are structures that need to be built and upgraded for a radius increase. But they will also decay and need repairs. Advanced and active guilds will be able to maintain a bigger area than others. Totems of inactive guilds will decay.
    and / or:
    - Something like a "mini-totem" (tribal flag?) is availabe to each player to claim his own small area of land inside the tribe radius. Only these small areas count as tribal area.

  6. #6
    Visitor
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Location
    Way down deep in a bottle of ale...
    Posts
    415
    Just remove safe zones, allow tribes to war each other, and take each others territories and all of this goes away....

    This game is going to break all to hell because you cannot combine everyone and every play style onto one server. Someone's always going to be pissed. Someone's always going to complain. Someone's never going to be happy. We are all going to be crammed, lagged, and in the end left with a non-playable game.

    Stop trying to re-create UO. You can't. That was a different time and a different frame of mind for mmorpg gamers.
    [SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]

    "By the time this game works there is going to be no one left, and because there is no one left, that is why it will work..."

    BigCountry | Head Hunters | http://www.wefarmpeople.com

  7. #7
    The problem here is the max size of a parcel of land & the concept of conservation.

    Because there is a perception of not enough land & therefore not enough animal habitation, the devs feel they can't just give everyone the max size parcel (even if they're only allowed to settle a small portion of it to begin with).

    While I agree with the OP that requiring 20 members on day one in order to get the max parcel is a bit steep, I understand where the devs are going with this. There is going to have to be a compromise somewhere since we won't have the option to forcefully evict neighbors if the need for expansion arises. This current setup isn't great, but may be an unnecessary evil given the limitations the devs have set for us & themselves in regards to conflict resolution.

  8. #8
    Quote Originally Posted by BigCountry View Post
    Just remove safe zones, allow tribes to war each other, and take each others territories and all of this goes away....

    This game is going to break all to hell because you cannot combine everyone and every play style onto one server. Someone's always going to be pissed. Someone's always going to complain. Someone's never going to be happy. We are all going to be crammed, lagged, and in the end left with a non-playable game.

    Stop trying to re-create UO. You can't. That was a different time and a different frame of mind for mmorpg gamers.
    Sounds like a lazy way out while pandering to only one play style, yours...

    EDIT: I guess all of this could away if PVP was removed instead.

  9. #9
    I don't see a problem with this off hand, but only time will tell. Luckily this is an indy game, an little is written in stone as the game grows and evolves.

    The way they have it now, more tribes will be encouraged to expand outward as the mist is expanded so they can get larger plots of land. This will also free up land over time near the lake for those people who MUST be on the lake. I personally see more excitement coming out of the mist than the lake.

  10. #10
    Quote Originally Posted by KeithStone View Post
    They are almost always started with just a few and over time they build up to large numbers.

    You're looking at data about tribes based on a period over time and not what it takes to start a tribe in one day.

    These restrictions about tribes doesn't make sense.

    It's being setup in a way that benefits what most people will carll Zergs and the only tribes in this game that are zergs right now are the ones from beta.

    My tribe has an advantage, we've been around since beta - this game shouldn't cater to tribes like this.

    Everyone on day 1 of luanch day should have the same oppurtunity to build and grow with this game. I don't understand why a decision that only benefits tribes who have been around since before the game has even luanched would be included in day 1 of launch day.

    It doesn't matter how much we helped out with testing or finding bugs, etc - you have to be fair to everyone on launch day.

    You can deminish in tribe status, but you can't grow with player count - that doesn't even make sense to me imo.

    We really need to rethink how tribes work.

    This is how it should be:

    There can only be tribes in this game, your territory grow's based on member count. Max radius from another tribes border when setting a totem = 100m.

    In a land rush it's about getting land, if you feel like your area is over crowded go somewhere else.

    Allow tribes to be started with 1 person.

    Edited: Do not allow tribes to place a totem within 50m of a scrap pile, this prevents exploits by large tribes that could have solo tribes started to claim up all the scrap piles. (tribe border can engulf a scrap pile if the tribe grows large enough and there is not an existing tribe in your way.)

    Do away with settelements, bands, and clans, please!

    This allows tribes to grow and shrink based on member count and it still keeps solo to small group players confined in a smaller area that can be picked for resources outside their actual owned territory.

    And then the only thing that would need to be done is make it so that unsubbed accounts drop from the totem so that if a solo, small group, or large tribe goes inactive then their totem goes away.

    Max tribe radius would still be 200m.

    Radius would not overlap another tribe, which means your tribe growth could be blocked as it should in a resource heavy and territory control heavy game. However, you still have the ability to control a minimum of 100m radius, which is 200m across your owned territory.
    Thank you.

    +1
    [SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
    www.theburninghorde.com

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •