Penalties for tribes that build on junkpiles

[ifireallymust]

That's fine, so long as inability to safely build on it means it also can't be fenced.

But I bet that's not what you're asking for, is it? You just want to cut homesteaders off from junk and let tribes fence it all without penalty.

Which calls for a definite hell no in my book.

[ColonelTEE3]

That's fine, so long as inability to safely build on it means it also can't be fenced.

But I bet that's not what you're asking for, is it? You just want to cut homesteaders off from junk and let tribes fence it all without penalty.

Which calls for a definite hell no in my book.

Think before you speak. I'm part of no tribe right now. I came up with this idea as a soloer camped up in my homestead on a mountain looking down on tribes building on top of junkpiles. Thanks for pegging me wrong though.

If you can only build in your tribal territory, then yes that means no fences on any of the junk. If your tribe builds on a junk pile, then, by this idea, your entire tribe land is vulnerable to attack, which means it will be scroachfest 2011 at that camp. They'll be devoured by vultures and griefed constantly for the attention they bring to themselves and the safety they lack. The trade off couldn't possibly be worth it.

[Marcolo]

Perhaps purely as clarification ...

What I could see, is that any land marked as "junk pile" is flagged as non-totem area. Which means you will never see an encroachment warning, it can't be built on, and is not a safe zone. However, it also means that once the junk has been removed, it will revert to tribal/homestead area and carry all the benefits.

Of course, for over-lap purposes, the true radius will be used to determine whether a competing totem can be laid down. Another totem would not be able to be placed within the radius of the first, even if it is on a junk pile.

From a logic stand-point: IF ( IN totem-radius AND NOT junk-pile ) THEN tribal-land ELSE open-land

[ColonelTEE3]

Perhaps purely as clarification ...

What I could see, is that any land marked as "junk pile" is flagged as non-totem area. Which means you will never see an encroachment warning, it can't be built on, and is not a safe zone. However, it also means that once the junk has been removed, it will revert to tribal/homestead area and carry all the benefits.

Of course, for over-lap purposes, the true radius will be used to determine whether a competing totem can be laid down. Another totem would not be able to be placed within the radius of the first, even if it is on a junk pile.

From a logic stand-point: IF ( IN totem-radius AND NOT junk-pile ) THEN tribal-land ELSE open-land

I would be entirely happy with this too. I'd be happy with them to do either my suggestion or this suggestion. Either would be a significantly better answer than the current situation.

In fact i'd go as far as to say this idea is even better because then you completely negate the problem of tribes being located on the junkpiles to begin with. However, if they won't make junkpiles non-accessible to tribes, then my idea would be a back up.

So, ideally, we would have NO tribes sitting on top of junkpiles.

But, if they HAVE to be allowed to live on junkpiles, they sure as hell should be attackable in their own camps.

[maelwydd]

I would be entirely happy with this too. I'd be happy with them to do either my suggestion or this suggestion. Either would be a significantly better answer than the current situation.

In fact i'd go as far as to say this idea is even better because then you completely negate the problem of tribes being located on the junkpiles to begin with. However, if they won't make junkpiles non-accessible to tribes, then my idea would be a back up.

So, ideally, we would have NO tribes sitting on top of junkpiles.

But, if they HAVE to be allowed to live on junkpiles, they sure as hell should be attackable in their own camps.

Never had a problem finding an unattended junk pile so far as a lone scavanger. There are many junk piles out there and only so many tribes. Add to the fact that when the land size is increased, well established tribes will probablly not want to relocate, so small clans and homesteaders will be the ones able to claim a junk pile and trade with those living nearer the lake. Not sure why the panic myself.

[ifireallymust]

Think before you speak. I'm part of no tribe right now. I came up with this idea as a soloer camped up in my homestead on a mountain looking down on tribes building on top of junkpiles. Thanks for pegging me wrong though.

If you can only build in your tribal territory, then yes that means no fences on any of the junk. If your tribe builds on a junk pile, then, by this idea, your entire tribe land is vulnerable to attack, which means it will be scroachfest 2011 at that camp. They'll be devoured by vultures and griefed constantly for the attention they bring to themselves and the safety they lack. The trade off couldn't possibly be worth it.

I did think, you didn't. Just because a tribe can't build directly on a junk pile doesn't mean they can't fence around it to cut off access.

[NexAnima]

How about we play the game first and have a world built (the entire purpose of prelude...), instead of spreading hypothetical scare propaganda that only tribes will have junk. There is a far more junk out there then there are tribes. Will it last? No, but its not suppose to. Junk exists to be the building blocks of the new world (my theory anyways). I have traveled almost the entire map, you want to know what I have seen? More junk then people...

[Hazard]

I agree with original poster, that would be a great idea

[schlock]

I agree there is a problem with homesteads on junkpiles but I would rather avoid hard restrictions. I would take the OP's idea over what is currently in place but here is an idea I'll throw out there.
Let it work as it is now; the homestead/tribe squats the junk just for them but since they are living on the most hazardous area post Apocalypse (rotting flesh, pcb's, heavy metals, noxious chemicals etc.), they suffer some serious illnesses that would be indicated by serious reduction in all stats. That way they can have the freedom of living on trash but with real life based consequences. It just seems silly that peeps living on the most inhospitable spots have the greatest advantage.
Still doesn't solve the problem of using and alt to squat the junk but I still think there is some merit.
Maybe restrict the size of land owned on junk?
The destructible fences sounded pretty interesting as well.

Food for thought, would like to hear more ideas

Food for thought,

[Haakhen]

I like this idea, a lot! I agree 100% with what you said in OP.