Results 1 to 8 of 8
  1. #1

    Tribal area expansion

    1. I'm not a fan of the tribal population being the sole determinate of tribal area.

    2. The game needs to some type of 'value' for goods...something of constant need and use.

    I've got no problems with initial tribal area being determined by the size of your tribe. Well i do have a problem with it, actually, but it's not something i can't live with

    what i'd like to see is the ability of players to further expand their tribal areas by 'ranking' their tribal totem.
    5 ranks? 10 ranks? whatever, each rank increases the tribal radius by 5%

    to rank a totem you'll need some resources, each rank taking more. lumber, nails, sand, granite, whatever. the lower ranks taking common resources (ie. granite, limestone, lumber, large metal plates), the upper ranks taking less common (sand, zync, specific wood types, bones).

    as is currently the case, base totem is just that and requires no maintenance. once you rank a totem, you have to maintain it on a weekly basis, lest it derank and you lose whatever benefit you received from it previously.

    what this does:
    a) hopefully gets people out in the world
    b) puts value on some resources (above and beyond crafting) since they are consumable...and always, some folks would be willing to trade for consumables. Also the rarer resources become valuable, sicne folks will need them.
    c) gives a way to help swallowing inactive tribes. a tribe could not incroach on the tribal area of a equally ranked totem (a tribe would get a grace window to rank their totem to match their neighbor if they were being encroached upon), but would usurp the area of a lesser ranked tribe.
    d) creates a consumable environment that hopefully isnt overly tedious, but consumption creates activity.
    e) eventually, maybe certain architecture would be tied to a certain totem rank.

  2. #2
    Not a bad idea. It would allow homesteaders to strive for hard work as well.

  3. #3
    Good idea. It would be nice to have a system where tribe area size is not only based on the member numbers.
    The cost of totem ranking should depend on the tribe size too. The more members they have the more resource should be required to rank up. That would encourage tribes not to become a huge zerg one, and would give chance solo homesteaders to keep up with bigger tribes (its obvious that a homestead player would have much more problem with gathering the resources for ranking up than a 30 members tribe.)

    Encroaching needs more thoughts. What if 2 tribes are ranking up equally so that they can't grow their area anymore ? What happens when a tribe eats up another small tribe's land ?

  4. #4
    I would also like to add to the requirements of a rank a certain # of buildings to be built within the radius. This way you don't see maxed out totems without any buildings.

  5. #5
    Yes I would love this idea.
    Rank up your totem, and rank up your buildings. Pretty much it would class itself. You build more buildings you can have a larger control. Great idea.

    "Victorious warriors win first and then go to war, while defeated warriors go to war first and then seek to win."

  6. #6

  7. #7
    Quote Originally Posted by Trusin View Post
    I would also like to add to the requirements of a rank a certain # of buildings to be built within the radius. This way you don't see maxed out totems without any buildings.
    Dont like that part. I don't want 2000 buildings on my land for nothing.

  8. #8
    Quote Originally Posted by orious13 View Post
    Heh... R5 totems?
    only r8's...its how we roll

Posting Permissions

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