Removing inactive players from tribe:

[MrDDT]

Not that I am taking any sides here, I'm not. But his 70% inactive player estimate would be correct if you have approximately 25 active and 100+ claimed members on your roster. Anyway I digress.

The question isn't about inactive members really, most games have tons of inactive players on their guild rosters. The question I think is "should a tribe retain max area even if the current active players base drops well below that minimum required for that area.

In a real world setting it wouldn't make much sense. And the resource idea is a bit out of context for this game in my opinion. I mean there are no states or government or landlords, so who would we be paying upkeep to? the Xsyon Gods?

Don't get me wrong, I don't care to lose land area either but I think we are trying to fix a symptom of an ongoing problem as fatboy pointed out. Probably best to leave it alone until the game can sustain a more consistent population, then these problems will most likely no longer be a problem.

I see the resources fits well.

1) What is the totem made of? You need all these items to make a tool or a weapon, but nothing to make a large totem out of wood feathers and who knows what else?
2) The resources IMO would be for the protection the totem offers. You need to feed it something. Hence the resources. I think of it like fire (not xsyon fires which currently take no resources, which should be turned back on IMO) where you have to feed it fuel to keep it going.
3) Xsyon is still fluid, the choice of what is done now, will effect it for a long time coming. You can make up a lot of things of how resources are used etc.

[Willowhawk]

The resources IMO would be for the protection the totem offers. You need to feed it something. Hence the resources. I think of it like fire (not xsyon fires which currently take no resources, which should be turned back on IMO) where you have to feed it fuel to keep it going.

Well I'm not against the resource idea, I'm just not thrilled with it. It still feels like fixing a symptom. I think I would rather grow the tribe area because we "Need" the space. And I don't think I want to have to feed a totem every day so I can maintain my tribe size. Most games like Vanguard that have upkeep for housing is just symbolic. Everyone pays for a year in advance so they don't forget to pay. I believe all this will do is make everyone grind resources so they can have huge properties even though they may have only a few players. If you make it so you have to have huge amounts of resources then the game will become a resource grind. Small amounts for upkeep and everyone has the largest property available. And I would rather have active players than grind more resources.

I have some ideas for tribe area that wouldn't require paying the sky Gods and would give people a little incentives to stay with a tribe and even do some recruiting themselves. Goes something like this.

Tribe size based on tribe numbers: To reach Max size for any group above homestead you would need to initially meet the minimum requirement we currently have 5, 10, 20 etc. The tribe size won't shrink until you have dropped below 75% of that number for 60 days giving tribes a little wiggle room and some time to replace inactive players.

Now the incentives for players to stay with a tribe could be things like some tribes already do. (player driven) Offer them their own place with some space to build etc. Now the outlying tribe area is the most at risk of being dropped out of the tribe should the tribe lose too many members. So these players will likely work to bring in new members guaranteeing they don't end up outside the tribe boundary. Now you have tribe members working to bring in new people. It could be something like the town surrounding a keep. The outlying areas are the ones that get sacrificed during war, while the inner keep is the safest or more secured area.

Then you could offer a hierarchy system that says players with seniority (been in tribe longest) get to move in closer to the central area of the tribe if and when players currently holding those areas drop from the active list. Since most people won't want to lose their place, especially if it is prime location they will likely log in at least once in that 60 days to hold their place in the tribe hierarchy keeping your tribe roster current and protecting your tribe area.

For small tribes 10 man and under it would be quite easy to recruit a new player here and there to keep the minimum requirement. And for those that really feel they want to have a large tribe or city, they would have to work a little harder. But isn't that the idea? To build great things takes great commitment.

[Book]

I like the idea Willowhawk. I think the particulars of how to organize internally might change from one tribe to the next but the "wiggle room" idea sounds reasonable.

One thing of note with the tribe size by tribe number is that it does give the populace a certain amount of leverage over their leader.

Would it be feasible to make it an option when droppping the totem? A leader would need to weigh the risks and decide if they want a size by resource or by actives based on what they know about their squadmates. Definition of active and amount of resource to be discussed later, just more conceptually right now.

Would have implications for homesteaders as well. If by number, your land won't grow but it won't shrink. If by resource, you could grow your land if dedicated but it could also shrink smaller than starting size if neglected.

Just a thought. Happy Saint Patrick's Day everyone! have fun, and be safe

[MrDDT]

Well most of the sandbox games Ive seen.
Wurm, UO, Darkfall, Shadowbane, Mortal Online. Have an upkeep system of some type.

I dont expect the resource upkeep needed to be done each day. I would hate that system.

You talked a little about small tribe holding huge areas. Well, they would have to upkeep them as well. With 1 or 5 members holding a max radius totem it would take a lot of work. If they wanted to put that work in, why shouldnt they hold that land?

To me an active group of 5 people playing 20 hours a day is the same as 100 people playing 1 hour a day. I dont see why those 5 players should be put out into the cold of the side of tribe they should have when they are playing and adding to the game just as much as 100 people are.

Now you might come back with "Well 100 active accounts is better for the devs" which is 100% true. However, 100 people playing 1 hour a day is really worse over all. Why do you ask? Because they dont help the economy much, nor driving things in game. If you get 5 people actively playing the game at that level, they will have events, trading, building the areas. When you have 100 people playing for 1 hour. Most of that 1 hour is spent in "fluff" time. Not truly playing but getting into the game for the day.

With an active game (economy, conflict, PVE, chat etc) you have more people wanting to play and stay. If you have your friends logging for only 30mins to an hour. You are likely to log off with them also. People logging off, means less people overall playing. People logging off has a spiral effect. Where others log off also. You see it all the time in game/ventrilo. Someone says "Goodnight, Im off to bed" and 2 or 3 others will follow hehe.

I'm not saying everyone should play 20 hours a day, Im not saying that people that play for 1 hour a day are bad. I'm just saying from the point of the resource stance here, having 100 actives for 1 hour a day in a tribe shouldnt warrant extra area for that tribe when another tribe with 5 members plays 20x more. Those 5 members will need MORE room than that 100.

Your system of how tribes work, is very common and I agree with that. Its very common for tribes to set up that system, and offer reasons for people to join. But you are also talking about large tribes that are really wanting everyone to join.

What about the smaller close group of players? 5 or 10 man groups of friends? Or people looking to be some of the elite players? Merc work, or specialized traders? Another large part of Xsyon is the solo, or very small group of players. Many of them put in more time and effort than tribes 5 or 10x larger than them. Yet they are stuck in a 25m radius tribal area. They dont want to add more random people, but they are stuck with a very small amount of land.
While they see these other tribes with 100+ people and 70% of the are inactive holding 200m radius tribes. Why not offer the same plan for everyone? You want a larger tribe? Pay for it. Resources is a great way to pay for it?
Why? Because it helps the economy in game. It gives things for members to do even though they dont have great skills. It gives newer members something to help out the tribe while training up their skills.

The reasons for it are great.

Whats the problem with it? Extra work.
No one wants to feel like they have to work in game and real life. So there needs to be a balance here of how hard it is to upkeep/buy a totem vs the reward.
This is where stacking larger areas should be for only the very very resourceful people. 200m radius tribe should be very costly to place, and very clostly to upkeep. While smaller homesteads shouldnt cost much at all for placing or upkeep.

One thing of note with the tribe size by tribe number is that it does give the populace a certain amount of leverage over their leader.

Would it be feasible to make it an option when droppping the totem? A leader would need to weigh the risks and decide if they want a size by resource or by actives based on what they know about their squadmates. Definition of active and amount of resource to be discussed later, just more conceptually right now.

Using the resource system, this would also be the case.

If tribe members dont want to have someone as their leader, or they are not happy. They would simply stop giving resources. Just as you say dropping out would do, but not giving resources would be even better here, as they wouldnt need to leave the tribe to do it.

[Jadzia]

I would love to see a system where the size of the tribe land doesn't depend of population. A system where the totem owner can buy the land. On the other side I'm not fond of totem upkeep...that becomes tiring very soon and once someone bought his land why should he pay for it even more ? Make it expensive for a tribe to own a big land and it will work nicely.

[Azurfale]

A homestead should have little to no upkeep, and so imo should have even less space than they get now. Kicking inactive people is not a solution because there are many reasons for not being active other than not wanting to play anymore, could be work related or even a broken computer. I think totem upgrades should be earned, and that at the very least have a monthly upkeep to sustain them. For a band it should not be overwhelming to upkeep but should be difficult to upgrade. For a full sized tribe radius upgrade cost should be very high and upkeep very high as well, which should prevent 1 man holding 200m radius but still allow hard working smaller tribes to achieve greatness.

Its not all about totem size and upkeep either, having totem upkeep gives players something to do to keep them active and playing. Another benefit I see is some PvP (most others are going to scream grief). Trees as a resource at least become valuable and if I chose to clear cut around someone's totem they would be forced to fight me off, get their wood from further away, plant a lot of baby trees for less wood, trade for wood or not make their upkeep payments.

Something to fight over will add to the player base, and if they get decay for items and armor working it will be great for the PVE community, which will be the start of an economy, which will be the start of politics and it just keeps snowballing from there.

Just because the community likes to hate on MrDDT, doesn't mean he doesn't have some good ideas. Just my 2 cents.

[znaiika]

I don't see problem with resource system, if you can upkeep a two hundred meter range tribe by your self? why not?
That should not be easy to do though.
Like MrDDT said, plan ahead, either you want a big tribe or a homestead.

[Kegan]

Maybe you could have a system where you have to build the next size totem to be able to expand and the bigger you go the more it takes to build. That way a tribe of say 25 people could expand there tribe much faster then the solo or small group of players. I would not care if it took many months for a solo player to expand and i think there should be a limit to the space a solo player can have. I do however think there should be a way to expand a homestead if nothing more then to give the player a sense of achievement and a goal to work towards. I would say double the size of what we get now would be nice.

[MrDDT]

Maybe you could have a system where you have to build the next size totem to be able to expand and the bigger you go the more it takes to build. That way a tribe of say 25 people could expand there tribe much faster then the solo or small group of players. I would not care if it took many months for a solo player to expand and i think there should be a limit to the space a solo player can have. I do however think there should be a way to expand a homestead if nothing more then to give the player a sense of achievement and a goal to work towards. I would say double the size of what we get now would be nice.

Yep I think a lot of solo or small group players are like this. They want something to work for, and adding tons of members they dont know, or dont want or dont care for isnt really an option. So they are stuck with 25m radius forever.

This to me is one of the major reasons for a resource/upkeep system.

Also it will help prevent griefing and new players that are 1 hour old from littering the area with a campfire, basket or 3, 3 sticks in a pile and maybe some grass.