Homesteads, like a plague of locusts [Archive]

Tehralph

03-02-2011, 12:50 PM

Exactly. Homesteads are a problem. One homestead can block a tribe for 280m in every direction. I have a couple solutions to this. A. Designate areas for tribe use/ homestead use only. As well as shared areas. B. Allow tribes to overlap a homesteads land C. Dont allow homesteads to be placed for the first few hours of game time. D. Allow totems to be destroyed, even if the people inside are in a safe zone.

galagah

03-02-2011, 01:25 PM

It's getting to be ridiculous, with single homesteads spread all over the map blocking huge zones of land from tribal use.

You do know that a lot of players are jsut messing with totems instead of reforming their tribes after every wipe etc ?

Exactly. Homesteads are a problem. One homestead can block a tribe for 280m in every direction. I have a couple solutions to this. A. Designate areas for tribe use/ homestead use only. As well as shared areas. B. Allow tribes to overlap a homesteads land C. Dont allow homesteads to be placed for the first few hours of game time. D. Allow totems to be destroyed, even if the people inside are in a safe zone.

Let me see :-

A) No , because all you would get is a headache for the devs from people " crying " cause their spot is reserved for a homestead when they wanted ot place a tribe , and vice versa .

Get to the spot first is a simple solution

B) No , Why should Tribe land overlap homesteads ? , if that's allowed , then Homesteads should be able to come in and plant in the middle of your tribal zone and be safe .

C) No , everyone should have the same rights to place at the very start of the game , Everyone paid the same amount to play .

D) Again No , because a tribe / homesteader can NOT be only 24/7 to stop the totem being destroyed .

Xidian

03-02-2011, 01:27 PM

I agree, there was a homestead about 200m away, and we couldn't place our tribe totem because of it. :(

jokhul

03-02-2011, 01:30 PM

NexAnima

03-02-2011, 01:32 PM

galagah

03-02-2011, 01:33 PM

You are so arrogant and close-minded. It takes ONE PERSON an INSTANT to place a homestead and block a tribe for 280m in every direction. You think its "fair" that a tribe has to gather 5 people into their tribe?

By all your arguments, you believe homesteads are perfect, there is no problem with them, and if a tribe cant gather 5 members before a single person can place a totem, than its fair.

Just shut up and stay out of this discussion, you arent adding anything to it. Youre just claiming that a broken system works, and that homesteads dont have any flaws.

No, 1 person does not have the same rights as 5+ people. No, 1 person did not pay the same amount as 5+ people.

Right, it's that hard to form your 5 members on the run .. of course , i forgot that things like " voice comms " don't exist at all .

You do know that you can " click " things on the run , and type in tribe name etc , you don't " have to stand like a cabbage " at the start .......

Oh , and if i feel like joining in i will thanks .

Your basically trying to just give Tribes all the advantages , your idea was not making it fair to all by a long shot .

Oh, and yes that 1 person does have the same rights . Your 5 are " Choosing " to group together , no-one is making them .

Tehralph

03-02-2011, 01:35 PM

Homestead only have a radius of 50m. My current homestead sits right on the border of the edge of anothers homestead. As in the minute i leave my land I enter his. Homesteads do not block land up to 280m or 200m for that matter.
Key words are homestead/homestead. Im talking about homestead/tribe. When you plant a tribe totem, you HAVE to have the radius of 250m clear from any other claimed land. Because that is the maximum, and it has to be reserved.

Right, it's that hard to form your 5 members on the run .. of course , i forgot that things like " voice comms " don't exist at all .

You do know that you can " click " things on the run , and type in tribe name etc , you don't " have to stand like a cabbage " at the start .......

Oh , and if i feel like joining in i will thanks .

Your basically trying to just give Tribes all the advantages , your idea was not making it fair to all by a long shot .

Oh, and yes that 1 person does have the same rights . Your 5 are " Choosing " to group together , no-one is making them .
Yes! I do want to give tribes advantages. Want to know why? They have multitudes of more people than any homestead will ever have. They pay more money, as a whole, and usually pay longer than any solo player ever does. There are no NPCs, no pre-made towns, no nothing, and its all up to TRIBES to rebuild this world. So, you entitle yourself with "same rights" but while most tribes are creating cities for people to live in, youre going to be up in the mountains crying that you dont have the land for your cows to roam on.

bruisie159

03-02-2011, 01:37 PM

NexAnima

03-02-2011, 01:37 PM

Key words are homestead/homestead. Im talking about homestead/tribe. When you plant a tribe totem, you HAVE to have the radius of 250m clear from any other claimed land. Because that is the maximum, and it has to be reserved.

So...I fail to see an issue here. If some one places before another, what gives the late ones the right to the land? just because they are a tribe? That doesn't make sense and sounds very selfish.

Tehralph

03-02-2011, 01:39 PM

and how is that the homesteads fault??

You imply totems have a mind of their own. Well, the devs decide how the totems behave, and the devs wont change anything when solo players cry that it IS fair and the likes.

So...I fail to see an issue here. If some one places before another, what gives the late ones the right to the land? just because they are a tribe? That doesn't make sense and sounds very selfish.
And you dont think its selfish that a solo player can claim land in an instant, all alone, and block tribes for such a large area? Pot calling the kettle black...

FabricSoftener

03-02-2011, 01:40 PM

just harvest the land anyway, whats the worst that can happen? loose a good alignment? oh my!

NexAnima

03-02-2011, 01:43 PM

...

Yes! I do want to give tribes advantages. Want to know why? They have multitudes of more people than any homestead will ever have. They pay more money, as a whole, and usually pay longer than any solo player ever does. There are no NPCs, no pre-made towns, no nothing, and its all up to TRIBES to rebuild this world. So, you entitle yourself with "same rights" but while most tribes are creating cities for people to live in, youre going to be up in the mountains crying that you dont have the land for your cows to roam on.

Wrong, we all pay the same. Just because you have BFFs in game, doesn't mean you pay more. So yes, every player has the same rights as the others. Once again this thought process is very selfish.

...

And you dont think its selfish that a solo player can claim land in an instant, all alone, and block tribes for such a large area? Pot calling the kettle black...

No, I don't since tribes can do the same by grouping up creating a tribe, then laying the totem down.

galagah

03-02-2011, 01:43 PM

So...I fail to see an issue here. If some one places before another, what gives the late ones the right to the land? just because they are a tribe? That doesn't make sense and sounds very selfish.
+1

This is just another " Cry " thread of " oh no , someone beat me to a nice spot first " . So instead of going exploring and finding somewhere else , they come here and " whine " .

bruisie159

03-02-2011, 01:45 PM

[QUOTE=Tehralph;55738]You imply totems have a mind of their own.QUOTE]

No not at all you were complaining that homesteads block tribes because u have to leave 250 or whatever radius as reserve for your tribe to grow. Well, if thats a problem why dont you campaign on here to remove the reserved land for tribes future use and maybe you should only expand into new land when new members arrive and not have it reserved? It doesnt make sense that you would argue for less rights for homesteads based on what you said.

Tehralph

03-02-2011, 01:49 PM

The other solution is to surround the homesteader with multiple homesteads, essentially forcing them to go into your tribes safezones if they want to leave. When they leave, you kill them until they pull up stakes. Then place a tribe totem.

That relies on the WILL of the player. Hell, he could have 2 accounts, and never log onto the homestead account again. If there isnt any in-game mechanic to resolve this issue, many, many people are going to get pissed.

bruisie159

03-02-2011, 01:51 PM

Yes! I do want to give tribes advantages. Want to know why? They have multitudes of more people than any homestead will ever have. .

This isnt true either, the biggest poll on the forums about the subject shows that half the player base plays alone or in small groups
http://www.xsyon.com/forum/showthread.php/3369-How-are-you-going-to-play

Tehralph

03-02-2011, 01:54 PM

This isnt true either, the biggest poll on the forums about the subject shows that half the player base plays alone or in small groups
http://www.xsyon.com/forum/showthread.php/3369-How-are-you-going-to-play
Sorry, but that poll is invalid. It was made when 10+ was the decider for totem placement. Now its 5+. So the 2-9 covers two groups. No way to tell which part of that vote is homestead, and which part is tribe.

bruisie159

03-02-2011, 01:56 PM

Sorry, but that poll is invalid. It was made when 10+ was the decider for totem placement. Now its 5+. So the 2-9 covers two groups. No way to tell which part of that vote is homestead, and which part is tribe.

if we spilt it 50/50 theres still a sizable part of the community that plays that way. Too large to think about giving them more restrictions than others when as people have said before we all pay the same amount to play.

AegisGuild3

03-02-2011, 02:02 PM

if we spilt it 50/50 theres still a sizable part of the community that plays that way. Too large to think about giving them more restrictions than others when as people have said before we all pay the same amount to play.

Sorry, I'm back. Had a little hiccup.

Yes. But even still that sizeable part of the community wont be used as a spawn location further into the game, they wont have the land to domesticate animals. Theyre just not going to contribute as much to the foundations as the tribes will.

We seriously need to find a solution that doesnt block tribes for such a large area, as many people have already said theyre going to use homesteads to harass Hopi. As of now, they are just too exploitable.

bruisie159

03-02-2011, 02:04 PM

We seriously need to find a solution that doesnt block tribes for such a large area,.

Its not the homestead size that blocks them its the size of the tribes "reserved" area for future expansion that blocks them.

To be honest though i dont think there is a problem with either homesteads or tribes it just seems to me we are finding out the world isnt very big at the moment.

AegisGuild3

03-02-2011, 02:07 PM

Its not the homestead size that blocks them its the size of the tribes "reserved" area for future expansion that blocks them

But Xsyon doesnt want land overlapping. Perhaps have the reserved land not be able to overlap other tribes reserved land. And when placing next to a homestead, it basically goes around the boundaries, leaving the safe zone for the homesteader. But after a tribe is down, a homestead cant place within the reserved land.

Escargot

03-02-2011, 02:15 PM

The problem is that it is MUCH harder for tribes to place totems, giving solo homesteaders a huge advantage...outside and beyond the requirement of a tribe having to gather 5 people first during the initial landrush.

It's very easy to find a space for a solo homestead, and very hard to find a place for any tribe of 5 or more members.

Thus, suggestions like giving tribes first crack at things, or allowing tribe placements to override solo placements have some merit, because the solo homesteader can very easily find another spot, whereas the tribe cannot. If you go by the maxim that everyone pays the same and deserves the same opportunity to select a spot, then 1 person paying and having that huge advantage, vs 5 people paying at being at a huge disadvantage, seems more than a little out of the bounds of "equal".

Again, placing a tribe totem requires there be no tribe or homestead BOUNDRY within 280m (or whatever that max radius is). Placing a homestead totem requires there be no other homestead or tribe BOUNDRY within 25m (or whatever that max radius is).

If you can't understand the difference, or the difficulty it causes, then you're being either dense, or biased.

Aethaeryn

03-02-2011, 02:21 PM

Why don't they just create one totem type. . .it expands as your tribe does. . if you have one person it stays small. If you get more it gets bigger. If there is no room for you tribe to grow you move somewhere where there is room or start a second "city". I would be more in favour of overlapping where a homesteader is "pressured" off of his land by the fact that the neighboring tribe now overlaps his land and he can be attacked by them there. Failing that have the decay rate of the totem increase the more a tribe grows to overlap it (assuming there is a decay rate). If someone plants a homestead in a place a PvP tribe wants to settle it doesn't make a lot of sense to me for them to be safe there. I know games have to be balanced through mechanics . . I have argued that many times but there most be some way to make it work.

bruisie159

03-02-2011, 02:21 PM

The problem is that it is MUCH harder for tribes to place totems, giving solo homesteaders a huge advantage...outside and beyond the requirement of a tribe having to gather 5 people first during the initial landrush.

It's very easy to find a space for a solo homestead, and very hard to find a place for any tribe of 5 or more members.

Again, placing a tribe totem requires there be no tribe or homestead BOUNDRY within 280m (or whatever that max radius is). Placing a homestead totem requires there be no other homestead or tribe BOUNDRY within 25m (or whatever that max radius is).

.

you're stating the obvious really, of course a tribe requires more space to set up as it has space reserved for it for future growth. Thats just a natural drawback (well also a positive) of being in a tribe. You have more space. There are pro's and cons for everything including this debate, a compromise was already reached when homesteads were created to prvent solo players and small groups claiming tribe sized spots. If its difficult to find anywhere to start a tribe then maybe its more space that we need.

As for being biased i think that must also apply to both sides dont you?

Viper66

03-02-2011, 02:29 PM

If I place a homestead totem next to your large tribe area and planned area ,, so be it .. send me a check for 6 months worth of the game and ill give it up.. !!

Phayz

03-02-2011, 02:31 PM

First I have to say I am in a tribe, However, Placing a homestead is not as easy as you might think, sure out in the mountains with no access to resources, easy as pie, but if you even want to get within sprinting distance of a junkpile, and be fairly close to a tribe for commerce reasons, it isn't quite so easy.

Once a tribe totem is placed, it reserves the entire area, and you cannot drop a homestead totem anywhere near it, and of course the much needed resources, Sure tribes have more survivors grouped together, but there are still a huge amount who are going it with under 5 in their group, and should have the same " chance" at getting a spot.

5 or under in a group will be a whole lot harder to advance than a larger tribe would, so even if the tribe finds they have to shift 80m from where their sweet spot is, the have the numbers to overcome the displacement, and still thrive.

both sides have their arguments, and both sides have merit, but at the end of the day, everyone has the same rights

Again I am in a tribe, and should we lose our spot to a homesteader, yes it would be unfortunate, but we will move on......

Escargot

03-02-2011, 02:31 PM

How about letting those who place tribe totems use ALL of the land they're laying claim to in the form of the max radius from the outset, since they're already "paying" for it by having to find a large enough area to accomodate it?

If they're not large enough to police all that area and keep people from "encroaching", well, that's the way it goes. It's the same problem they have now.

No one else is hurt, because it's not land they'd be able to use anyway, since it's already within the tribe's max boundry.

If this was the case, then a 10-15 member tribe (for instance) could find enough playable area within the boundry they already control to be happy, despite having to have placed thier totem in a less than favorable overall position at the outset because of interfering solo homesteads.

Seems like a solution that has the potential to leave everyone happy.

The problem with the current system isn't that the largest tribes are having an issue...because they already have this advantage. It's the medium sized tribes, who have to find a full sized tribe area, but can only use a small part of it, that are getting hammered.

Escargot

03-02-2011, 02:49 PM

Robhood

03-02-2011, 03:15 PM

Since I already can guess the objections to the previous suggestion, how about this solution:

Let me choose the spot within the boundry I've already claimed, that I want to start my "growth" from. And let that sub-radius within the larger max tribe radius be the area I can build within, and let it expand as I add members until it fills in the max radius already reserved for my tribe.

As opposed to the current system that says I have to grow from the centerpoint of the already reserved max tribe radius.

Good point. The gripe is, as an example, a small tribe wants to have it's area covering junk and water. A homestead is 140 meters away and the tribe cannot place the totem to cover the junk/water. The tribe moves back far enought to be able to place a totem but no longer does the junk/water fall within their radius. If the tribe grows enough in size over a period of time, it will engulf the junk/water desired, if it remains moderate in size, it cannot claim the junk/water within it's boundries, but no one else can claim that land either.

Allow a tribe to use the land that is reserverd, rather then have it (the land) sit there wasted on the hopes a tribe grows large enough to fill the area already reserved and wasted.

Redemp

03-02-2011, 03:20 PM

Easy solution , push the green mist back ... plenty of land.

Done.

Jadzia

03-02-2011, 03:22 PM

Easy solution , push the green mist back ... plenty of land.

Done.

This...all these problems arise because we don't have enough playground.

AegisGuild3

03-02-2011, 03:23 PM

This...all these problems arise because we don't have enough playground.
And how many more problems will arise when the nearest person is a 20 minute run away...

NexAnima

03-02-2011, 03:29 PM

This...all these problems arise because we don't have enough playground.

We do, it just no one wants to travel more then 3 zones away from the lake. In my travels I can across tons of flat lands far away from the lake. People need to step away from their comfort zones, there's a big world out there.

Str8forya

03-02-2011, 03:31 PM

Xidian

03-02-2011, 03:34 PM

Redemp

03-02-2011, 03:35 PM

We do, it just no one wants to travel more then 3 zones away from the lake. In my travels I can across tons of flat lands far away from the lake. People need to step away from their comfort zones, there's a big world out there.

That is because there is few junk and sand in the mountains surrounding Lake Tahoe, one zone mist border removal and a start point or two AWAY from the lake would ease all these problems and make launch smoother.

/shrug

NexAnima

03-02-2011, 03:37 PM

One thing i dont think i've seen suggested anywhere in these talks...... How about just inviting the person with the homestead to your tribe? I mean unless you just want to socialize with the people already in your tribe and only in your tribe. But then we will hear " I shouldnt be forced to associate with someone to be able to blah blah blah) but thats exactly what your expecting of the solo player.

Just a thought.

I thought about that too, what kept me from posting is the fact that douche bags will say "hey if drop your totem, you can join" then squelch on the deal. Now it falls into the buyer beware for me, but there's nothing the solo can do if getting screwed over. And I myself, if I went solo, would not submit to a heretics demand and would keep the land out of spite. There is nothing you could give me, that you couldn't kill me the minute I submitted and take back.

Xidian

03-02-2011, 03:39 PM

I thought about that too, what kept me from posting is the fact that douche bags will say "hey if drop your totem, you can join" then squelch on the deal. Now it falls into the buyer beware for me, but there's nothing the solo can do if getting screwed over. And I myself, if I went solo, would not submit to a heretics demand and would keep the land out of spite. There is nothing you could give me, that you couldn't kill me the minute I submitted and take back.

Well right now Forsaken has pretty much an open enrollment policy which means basically anyone that matches our ideals and is not a douchebag can join. This will stay in effect until our numbers reach a certain number, probably 20-30.

pilok

03-02-2011, 05:03 PM

AegisGuild3

03-02-2011, 05:13 PM

Probably said before but i didn't read all the replies.

It's just as easy for a tribe as for a solo player to claim land.
After wipe, let all tribe members go and find a good spot and claim it as a solo player, later remove the homestead and let the tribe place the totem.
So 1=5 and 50m-R = 250m-R? Shit fuck! I didnt know my math was so wrong!
No, its not just as easy for a tribe to plant as it is a solo player. Refer to above. Solo needs 1 player, tribe needs 5. Solo needs a 50m radius clear, tribe needs a 250m radius clear. Im tired of all these people claiming its the "same" for the two when the numbers so vividly prove such accusations wrong.

NexAnima

03-02-2011, 05:20 PM

So 1=5 and 50m-R = 250m-R? Shit fuck! I didnt know my math was so wrong!
No, its not just as easy for a tribe to plant as it is a solo player. Refer to above. Solo needs 1 player, tribe needs 5. Solo needs a 50m radius clear, tribe needs a 250m radius clear. Im tired of all these people claiming its the "same" for the two when the numbers so vividly prove such accusations wrong.

Its as simple as getting 5 of your tribe members at the start point add them to your tribe and then have the leader go and place. And boom totem placed in 3-10 minutes depending where your located. Still not a reason to have one player favored over another.

AegisGuild3

03-02-2011, 05:24 PM

Its as simple as getting 5 of your tribe members at the start point add them to your tribe and then have the leader go and place. And boom totem placed in 3-10 minutes depending where your located. Still not a reason to have one player favored over another.
And a homestead is as simple as getting one person to the spot. No waiting for others to create their characters, just one person. The current system is going to leave a lot of space unused, and even more people mad. because of all the reserved land it takes to place a totem. Question is, do we screw over solo players, or tribes?

NexAnima

03-02-2011, 05:35 PM

And a homestead is as simple as getting one person to the spot. No waiting for others to create their characters, just one person. The current system is going to leave a lot of space unused, and even more people mad. because of all the reserved land it takes to place a totem. Question is, do we screw over solo players, or tribes?

That is the million dollar question. I am not apposed to the original plan of tribes get a headstart of say a few hours but after that it should always be first come first serve. The reason I agree to this is that was the original plan we all singed up for on the first "launch".

orious13

03-02-2011, 05:46 PM

It could be your first meaningful guild pvp event... I'm pretty sure if you killed the guy before he placed the totem he'd rather re-roll than keep playing with no items.

I would move if a big tribe asked me simply because I want to see a huge city in a largely flat area heh, and they could just as easily stop me from even venturing out of my homestead if they wanted. But then again I've got like 4-5 possible homestead choices and never have I seen anyone at them for weeks. If I was a big tribe, I wouldn't have just 1 spot picked out because getting jacked is kind of part of land grab and I wouldn't be surprised if the deeper green mist areas are way better than what we've seen so far.

Proto

03-02-2011, 05:52 PM

Probably said before but i didn't read all the replies.

It's just as easy for a tribe as for a solo player to claim land.
After wipe, let all tribe members go and find a good spot and claim it as a solo player, later remove the homestead and let the tribe place the totem.

That wouldn't work bc the radius for homesteads is smaller than that of tribes, so if a singular tribe person went and put down a homestead and then someone else put down a homestead within whatever a tribes radius would be, you wouldn't be able to destroy your homestead totem and put up a tribe one.

Tandarie

03-02-2011, 07:35 PM

I would move if a big tribe asked me simply because I want to see a huge city in a largely flat area heh, and they could just as easily stop me from even venturing out of my homestead if they wanted. But then again I've got like 4-5 possible homestead choices and never have I seen anyone at them for weeks. If I was a big tribe, I wouldn't have just 1 spot picked out because getting jacked is kind of part of land grab and I wouldn't be surprised if the deeper green mist areas are way better than what we've seen so far.

/this

Plus

I would move if a tribe asked me to move in a decent manor. BUT , that's is certainly NOT what these tribes are asking. They just want more rights than homesteaders and what is really discusting is that they just might get them.

I'm sorry but I'm not sitting on the back of the bus for you folks. We should all have equal rights.

I am a reasonable person and even consider the places I have picked out to be most fair and not anything a large tribe could fit on. But don't you dare threaten me with griefing because I would rather die than budge one inch.

So I would suggest using a little sugar instead of vinegar. I would guess most homesteaders are good natured or they would seek out pvp guilds or whatever gankers are calling themselves these days.

We aren't the enemy so please stop treating us like one.

eltgmoney

03-02-2011, 07:41 PM

homesteads should start out at 10 square meters and only grow as a person is able to build larger buildings on that land. If a person just wants to have a small hut then his land area is small. If he decides to take the time to develop skills to build a larger home and other buildings, then he can grow hos land.

Maybe basing it on buildings is not the way to go, but it would be nice if a person has to spend time and effort into growing a homestead instead of immediately getting the max chunk of land available. Perhaps maybe it grows per week of time that haomestead is active. I dunno just a thought

Escargot

03-02-2011, 08:14 PM

I'm sorry but I'm not sitting on the back of the bus for you folks. We should all have equal rights.

We aren't the enemy so stop treating us like one.

But that's the problem. It's NOT equal. It's completely tilted in favor of the solo homesteader.

Where tribes have any advantage there, it's tilted towards the other extreme, towards the largest tribes.

The ones left holding the short end of the stick are everyone in between, all the middle sized tribes, who have to find full sized tribe areas but can only use a small portion of them. Both extremes have it good, and everyone else, probably the majority, are ill-served by this system.

And no one's treating YOU as the problem, or as an enemy. The problem is the way it's working. Not that you're using it as it is.

kiwiitis

03-02-2011, 08:29 PM

Copied from homepage.

"You know nothing. You’ve forgotten the past and have yet to learn the future. You are a lost soul in a strange barren world with little more than the shirt on your back. Little do you know you are destined to become a hero".
.................................................. .................................................. .................................................. ...................
In my opinion ...Homesteads only to start.........That would be nice.

Tandarie

03-02-2011, 08:36 PM

Escargot

03-02-2011, 08:39 PM

Here's my email to Jordi:

Hi Jordi,

Is it possible to add a bit more granularity to the tribal totem system, as you did with adding homesteads?

The problem occuring now is that middle sized tribes have to find a spot big enough to accomodate a full-sized tribe,
but are restricted to only a small portion of it. And finding those full sized tribe spots in and among the numerous
homesteads is increasingly difficult.

With the number of homesteads turning up everywhere, a 12 man tribe, for instance, has a big problem finding a
decent spot that's not blocked by a homestead, given that the tribe is restricted to building only at the exact center
of thier area and outward.

One suggestion was to allow a tribe to specify where within thier reserved area they would begin building, and allow
building within the size appropriate radius from that point, rather than as present, from the center of the reserved area.
Then letting that expand as and if more members joined the tribe, till it filled in the reserved area.

Probably a simpler solution would just be to add more totem size areas.

1-4 member homestead
5-10 member large homestead
11-20 member small tribe
21-40 member medium tribe
41+ member large tribe

all with appropriate max radius areas. These are examples. Number and size of additional totem types negotiable :P

Then a tribe could pick what they think would be thier max size, and that's what they'd have. If they outgrew that area,
they start an allied tribe, or find a larger area to accomodate the updated max tribe size.

The current system only serves the 2 extremes...it makes it extremely easy for a solo homesteader to place a totem,
blocking large zones of land from tribal use, and those largest tribes who can command the numbers can find an area that
accomodates them, and at least have the use of the majority or all of the area reserved for them.

Everyone in between, the mid sized tribes, probably the majority of players, are ill-served by the system at present.

Gradishar

03-02-2011, 08:44 PM

If homesteads could be destroyed...none of this would be an issue.

ifireallymust

03-02-2011, 08:56 PM

Okay, how about this for an idea:

Tribes get one hour head start (enough time for some of you to get up to no good if you decide to, and I know some of you will, but not so much time that you can blanket the entire map with your buddies and your alts). In return for waiting an hour, homesteaders receive one weaver, one lasher, and one storage basket recipe.

Why? Because if you guys get first pick, very few of us, even those of us who have spent hours and hours scouring the map for good homestead locations, will be able to get a spot with both water and junk in a homestead radius. But we should be able to find one of those two no problem. With a weaver and lasher and basket recipe, we can apply the famous Eve basic rule of pvp survival, which is: "Don't fly what you can't afford to lose." Or in this case, "Don't carry what you can't replace."

Those who fish will, of course, risk the fishing pole if they settle by junk and not water, but foraging until they can make or trade for another isn't too horrible.

There, everybody happy, problem solved. We can all be friends while we roam around killing and looting each other, right?

Dirt

03-02-2011, 09:08 PM

kaisergod

03-02-2011, 09:49 PM

I think that being a part of a successful tribe would hold a large advantage over being a part of a small homestead. HUGE safezone to hide in. unlimited tools, recipes, food, protection. easymode. So if you have to run a little while to stand on a precious junkpile, so what. Quit feeling entitled please, and harden the fuck up.

Not sure wether youre directing this at the homesteaders or the tribes. I could be wrong, but it sounds as if youre directing it at the homesteaders. If thats the case...

You said yourself, tribes already have a "large advantage" over the homesteaders. Wouldnt it make a bit more sense then to be telling the tribes to "Quit feeling entitled please, and harden the fuck up." when they already have several advantages? Seems like theyre QQing about not having even more advantages than they already do.

If ive got that backwards and youre directing that at the tribes complaining then.... forget what i said :-P

As to some of the people in the thread spouting crap about how a tribe paid more than an individual homesteader: NO they didnt. Theya re individual players who paid exactly the same as everyone else, and therefore have no special rights over everyone else. Just because you happen to be playing in the same tribe as someone else does not mean there was any impact or correlation whatsoever to your cost to play the game. You paid the same $40 as that solo player, and theyve got just a smuch right to whatever land they want as you do. Too slow to get it yourself? Sucks for you, but thats life. Simply throwing fits and crying about it only works for little kids who's parents cant say no. I dont think any of the staff here are your parents. I could be wrong about that, but for now ill assume im correct.

orious13

03-02-2011, 10:07 PM

You could always send a member to just place a homestead at your spot (assuming you have at least 5 other people for the tribe). Then disband the homestead and place the tribe totem down... once enough members are there. Just gotta be aware of the cooldown for joining a new tribe if that's working ( I haven't exited tribe so don't know about that).

Dirt

03-02-2011, 10:08 PM

Sorry, i was refering to tribes there. My wife and i have a homestead with a third account. 120.00 invested and will be 3x monthly charge. Theres probably many subscribers who prefer not to join a tribe, dont need the "social" aspect so much, in no panic to tribe up for security. We deserve the same chance at land and neednt be hung a kilometre up in the mountains cuz tribes have complete control of lake valley and junk.

Lerxst

03-02-2011, 10:24 PM

What's with this thread? Isn't this game all about "location, location, location" when building a tribe/homestead? Seems to me, the people with the strongest desire to do so should be the ones getting those locations, tribe or no tribe. This is all part of the FFA sandbox mechanic we're all playing this game for.

And, for the record, a Tribe does not pay more money to receive in-game benefits like, say, a bowling league would. We each pay $40 and then $15 a month to play on their server. Tribes don't pay 25% more or any sort of extra fee to get any sort of benefits, so get off that mind-set.

Proto

03-02-2011, 10:25 PM

/this

Plus

I would move if a tribe asked me to move in a decent manor. BUT , that's is certainly NOT what these tribes are asking. They just want more rights than homesteaders and what is really discusting is that they just might get them.

I'm sorry but I'm not sitting on the back of the bus for you folks. We should all have equal rights.

I am a reasonable person and even consider the places I have picked out to be most fair and not anything a large tribe could fit on. But don't you dare threaten me with griefing because I would rather die than budge one inch.

So I would suggest using a little sugar instead of vinegar. I would guess most homesteaders are good natured or they would seek out pvp guilds or whatever gankers are calling themselves these days.

We aren't the enemy so please stop treating us like one.

ah yes the last bastion of the idiot, simplify everything to all pvp guilds are gankers. Generalizations do wonders for the soul, right?

Proto

03-02-2011, 10:26 PM

If homesteads could be destroyed...none of this would be an issue.

I miss you :(

ifireallymust

03-02-2011, 11:21 PM

I'm a bit tired of the "join a tribe, get friends, or get out" mentality some forum posters seem to have. I don't want more social interaction than I already have in game. And I get plenty, every day, even as a soloer. Oh, and I like it just fine, thanks, so don't try to tell me to go play a single player game, either.

Neighbors stop by, someone asks for help or information in local (I'm aware global will eventually be gone), and I do my best to be friendly, and if I can help someone, I help them. If I were in a tribe, I know I'd run myself ragged trying to do things to help everyone else until I had no energy or peace or fun left for myself.

Not everyone is that way, some people function just fine in a tribe/guild/whatever, but I'm not one of them. So quit treading on my toes about it, guys, or you will see my ugly side. And I'm much meaner than Dirt! (Sorry, Dirt, but I am! ;))

And besides, not only is your money per tribe member worth no more than my money for my sub, as a solo player I may pay for a second account, at least for a little while, to get me over the starting issues of soloing, and therefore, I may soon be, as an individual, paying twice what the average tribe member is, strictly so that I can be a solo player.

bruisie159

03-02-2011, 11:32 PM

So 1=5 and 50m-R = 250m-R? Shit fuck! I didnt know my math was so wrong!
No, its not just as easy for a tribe to plant as it is a solo player. Refer to above. Solo needs 1 player, tribe needs 5. Solo needs a 50m radius clear, tribe needs a 250m radius clear. Im tired of all these people claiming its the "same" for the two when the numbers so vividly prove such accusations wrong.

Look, it was tribes who pressured for the rules to be changed to have a minimum number of people to create a tribe. 10 was the number put out there most often.

So what I'm saying is no it's not the same for homesteads and tribes becaus that's what tribes wanted! You got what you wanted now stop the crying!

Daeish

03-02-2011, 11:41 PM

So, lets interject some facts here.

1 player pays $40
5 players pay $200

1 player reserves an area with a 50m radius
5 players reserve an area with a 250m radius

1 player has sq(50m)*(PI) area reserved = 7853 sq m
5 players have sq(250m)*(PI) area reserved = 196349 sq m

Each of the 5 players in a tribe have 39269 sq m reserved (196349 / 5)

So:

The homesteader pays 0.5 cents per virtual square meter
The tribalist pays 0.1 cents per virtual square meter

zettoz

03-03-2011, 12:01 AM

Removing safezones would make this a non issue.

AegisGuild3

03-03-2011, 12:08 AM

1 player reserves an area with a 50m radius - This isnt reserved, this is what a homestead is. 1 or 5, its always 50m radius.
5 players reserve an area with a 250m radius - 5 players reserve land for 250m radius, but 5 players can only build on 50m radius. It takes 50 members to actually extend to the 250m radius...

So, lets debunk some "facts" here.

Daeish

03-03-2011, 12:17 AM

AegisGuild3

03-03-2011, 12:31 AM

The discussion was not about area for building on, the discussion was about reserved area that prevents others from establishing another tribe or homestead in the vicinity.

If we run the numbers to see who gets the most area for building, we get different results. But don't change the target when the numbers don't match your desired goal.

But you cant argue "5 players reserve all this land". Because its the same for 5, or 10, or 20 players in a tribe. Just because they reserve all that land, doesnt mean they can actually use it.

And besides, that doesnt change the fact that a homestead can block tribes from such a large area.

Id be in favor of reducing the reserved land, and anything beyond that lands will overlap. Or if totems were destructible. Anything where people can lose their land to another group of people.

ifireallymust

03-03-2011, 12:36 AM

But you cant argue "5 players reserve all this land". Because its the same for 5, or 10, or 20 players in a tribe. Just because they reserve all that land, doesnt mean they can actually use it.

And besides, that doesnt change the fact that a homestead can block tribes from such a large area.

Id be in favor of reducing the reserved land, and anything beyond that lands will overlap. Or if totems were destructible. Anything where people can lose their land to another group of people.

Oh, that'll go well.

Hi, lonely soloer. Your totem up on that tiny ledge has a radius just large enough to slightly infringe on this junkpile and stream. Both of which belong to us, by virtue of our ability to smite you and your totem down and crush your piddling hopes and dreams of a log cabin to dust beneath our feet.

See ya later.

Oh, you don't want to leave?

Good. Now you shall feel the force of our mighty, 10 member tribe wrath! *Commence with evil laughter here*

AegisGuild3

03-03-2011, 12:43 AM

Oh, that'll go well.

Hi, lonely soloer. Your totem up on that tiny ledge has a radius just large enough to slightly infringe on this junkpile and stream. Both of which belong to us, by virtue of our ability to smite you and your totem down and crush your piddling hopes and dreams of a log cabin to dust beneath our feet.

See ya later.

Oh, you don't want to leave?

Good. Now you shall feel the force of our mighty, 10 member tribe wrath! *Commence with evil laughter here*

And this will go well, too:

Oh, hello fellow Tahoen. I see you have set up camp near our spot, and by the might of the Ancients, our presence is not allowed within certain radius.

May we offer compensation for your removal?

Oh, no? Well, then let us take your land by force!

*zerg rush*
*swing**swing**swing**swing**swing**swing**swing** swing*

My lord! It seems this Tahoen is protected by the Ancients himself! He can not die, we can not force him off. It is his will alone that decides our fate!

Daeish

03-03-2011, 12:47 AM

Don't mistake me; I do understand the concern. However it goes both ways, and the sense of entitlement that some people seem to have here is largely caused by a misunderstanding that tribes, by virtue of being larger, pay more and have more rights to land than homesteaders. This is, as demonstrated, not the case.

My ideal solution would be that instead of having 1=50 and 5=250, it should be a limit based on a linear distribution, using sq m rather than the radius in meters as the deciding factors.
So,
1= 7853 sq m (gives radius 50m)
5 = 39265 sq m (gives radius ~110m)

After that, tribe radius increases every time a new member joins. If the growing circle meets another reserved area, it continues growing in all other directions - if it grows enough, it may end up surrounding and enveloping the smaller circle.

AegisGuild3

03-03-2011, 01:31 AM

Would you mind using the decimal symbol like 3.56 or something similar?

Because I dont think 5 = 39 thousand square meters...

And yes, surrounding a smaller circle would be good. But what about if lets say, a tribe gets 4 people to place their homestead around a tribe who had just placed their totem. Giving the current rules, plus that addition, tribes would have to run though the land that they surround, being vulnerable to attack, but unable to attack the people inside.

Daeish

03-03-2011, 01:52 AM

Would you mind using the decimal symbol like 3.56 or something similar?

Because I dont think 5 = 39 thousand square meters...
.

Step 1 (find area, from radius 50m): A=sq(R)*PI, A=sq(50m)*PI= 2500*PI = 7853 sq m
Step 2 (find equivalent area for 5 people): 5 x 7853 sq m = 39265 sq m

no decimals. A circle with a ~110m (111.79m) radius has an area of 39265 sq m

AegisGuild3

03-03-2011, 02:12 AM

Step 1 (find area, from radius 50m): A=sq(R)*PI, A=sq(50m)*PI= 2500*PI = 7853 sq m
Step 2 (find equivalent area for 5 people): 5 x 7853 sq m = 39265 sq m

no decimals. A circle with a ~110m (111.79m) radius has an area of 39265 sq m
Ah. Yes. I sometimes forget that the scale is 1:9 to real life. Where 1 meter in game is actually 9 meters where it would be in real life. So the land seems a lot smaller than what it actually is.

shukes

03-03-2011, 02:27 AM

Do what we did.
First person from our tribe to get to our patch set up a temporary totem. second person set up as close as possible to stop another dropping there. once we had enough people to set up a tribe and allow the other two to delete, we then dropped down our tribe totem.

Of course this is going to be hard for those with just enough to set up a tribe though. But still, we all start the same.

I have the good fortune of being in a tribe that isnt threatened so much by tribes. We accept that they have just as much right to start as us. if they want to solo, then that's thier choice and they should get the same start as us. If we want to start a tribe...THATS OUR CHOICE....and we have to go through the difficulty of starting out slower.

as i see it....the start of this game is me awaking and not remembering any skills or memorys of what happened...that's why we start of so basic. This also means that i couldnt remember my friends, family and any factions etc i may have been part of.......

So i simply can't expect to start the game as part of a huge community...i need to work on building one....a bit like a sandbox you could say :)

shukes

03-03-2011, 02:42 AM

AegisGuild3

03-03-2011, 02:59 AM

just camp him into his area! hell get bored of not being able to leave his safe area. isnt that the joy of sandbox?

The joy of a sandbox is having the tools in-game to do it yourself. In a sandbox, you would be able to camp him until he gave up, or destroy his totem.

ifireallymust

03-03-2011, 05:17 AM

And this will go well, too:

Oh, hello fellow Tahoen. I see you have set up camp near our spot, and by the might of the Ancients, our presence is not allowed within certain radius.

May we offer compensation for your removal?

Oh, no? Well, then let us take your land by force!

*zerg rush*
*swing**swing**swing**swing**swing**swing**swing** swing*

My lord! It seems this Tahoen is protected by the Ancients himself! He can not die, we can not force him off. It is his will alone that decides our fate!

Works fine for me. And you have the same protection, plus the added perk of being able to leave your tribe and set up a homestead in whatever location you fancy until you've gathered whatever resources you choose, whereupon you can rejoin your tribe. That is something a solo player who doesn't want to lose his belongings and location cannot do.

Nor can we set up an area large enough to cover as many resources as you can.

Nor can we wander out of our safe area with all of our tools, knowing a tribe member can replace them all if we are killed and looted. Tribes already have a huge advantage over solo players. I'm fine with all of those things, but you tribes just want more and more. And you have enough already.

Know who I think is getting shafted? Homesteaders with 4 members. Don't they only get the radius that a single player receives? And all of them are crowded into it together. Might as well not bother at all until you have five people. It's not like they can expand once they recruit another person, either. They have to dissolve their homestead and create a tribe, if nothing is within the wider range requirement.

Dust

03-03-2011, 07:08 AM

just camp him into his area! hell get bored of not being able to leave his safe area. isnt that the joy of sandbox?

Man, as a pvp'er, this sound like fun!

Redemp

03-03-2011, 09:54 AM

If you have a homesteader in your spot, surround his homestead with those of your own tribe so that they have to travel through enemy safezones when they leave their own and kill them when they do so. They'll pull up stakes in no time.

Wouldn't work on me, I'd sit afk and watch T.V just to drive you insane.

Then again ... I'm in a tribe. /shrug

NexAnima

03-03-2011, 10:04 AM

If you have a homesteader in your spot, surround his homestead with those of your own tribe so that they have to travel through enemy safezones when they leave their own and kill them when they do so. They'll pull up stakes in no time.

Its amazing how some of us would just spend an extra 40 dollars just in spite and never log back in (or if decay is in minimum as needed) to the homestead you surrounded.

Redemp

03-03-2011, 10:07 AM

I doubt many tribes take this approach to removing a homestead, its simply counter productive ... by the time you actually convinced or ran the homesteader off, the land around would also be occupied with Homesteads.

I just plan on placing in a bad area ...... then whining until Jordi makes it good.

( I'm kidding, I'm actually going to place in 904 because it has loads of empty space and i'm sure I can plant a homestead before tribe totems are coordinated. )

Redemp

03-03-2011, 10:19 AM

It's essentially what will happen to any homesteader who selects a piece of land a tribe would like to have.

The tribes doing the camping have poor foresight then, its a waste of time and ultimately will hurt you worse than having a few backup locations in mind.

Redemp

03-03-2011, 10:26 AM

That's yet to be proven. 10 people can keep tabs on a single player in their safezone while gathering/crafting with little to no effort.

I think you're not thinking about the other homesteaders that will follow and pretty much place where they can in good areas.
Waste your time camping someone and you'll end up camping a few of them ... whilst the gap gets larger and larger between tribes who thought ahead.
If it doesn't work out that way, you're still wasting time .... and if someone was camping me to move a spot I would just terraform everything my radius touched and then move.

/shrug -- Might and Muscle won't go near as far as foresight and honey.

No they won't go farther either....

orious13

03-03-2011, 10:34 AM

The entire tribe doesn't have to camp them. Those "speced" only for combat wouldn't still be complaining about "there's nothing for us to do..." all the time.

But it's bad planning for ANY tribe to have picked out only 1 spot. Getting shafted isn't against the rules. If your tribe has been here for a year you should know a lot of spots. You might even be able to negotiate an early mist expansion. I know when DF came out our original location was taken, but we still found another.

Use this time in beta to come up with a plan to protect your tribe area. You can do this in a lot of ways. Focus on preventing your land from being grabbed, not on reclaiming it after it has been. The first step to doing this might actually be for the members to get there first (everyone's name is known) to fend off land grabbers and then placing the totem.

outfctrl

03-03-2011, 12:39 PM

What I'd like to know is what happens to a Homestead totem once the owner stops playing ?

Is there an inactivity timer ? Or does that totem block everyone for the next 6 months ?

As with all MMO's, there's usually a drop-off in population after the free playtime is over. How will the game rules deal with the inevitable abandoned Homesteads and even tribe totems ?

Well, in the old UO days, you had to log in to keep your house from falling down. It was a pain, but it worked. Then they changed it to as long as you had an account open and you were paying your monthly sub fee your house wouldnt deteriorate.

Maybe a daily or every few days to log in to keep your totem from deteriorating would work.

kaisergod

03-03-2011, 03:29 PM

Well, in the old UO days, you had to log in to keep your house from falling down. It was a pain, but it worked. Then they changed it to as long as you had an account open and you were paying your monthly sub fee your house wouldnt deteriorate.

Maybe a daily or every few days to log in to keep your totem from deteriorating would work.

Thats actually not a bad idea not only to help out with the problem in this thread but just for overall keeping the game a bit cleaner. If someone stops playing, theres no point in leaving their land claim forever preventing anyone else from claiming that land. Though i think a day or so is a bit too fast, after all some (hopefully most) of us have live soutsid eof Xsyon and cant manage to be on every single day. Maybe a week or 2 would be pretty good. if someone doesnt login for a full week or 2, theyre likely not coming back so it would make sense to just get rid of the totems. If they ever do eventually come back to the game, theyll just have to setup a new homestead. In the case of someone simply being away and unable to login for awhile due to an emergency or vacation or whatever, perhaps they could just contact the staff and they could keep their totems active until their return.

NexAnima

03-03-2011, 04:13 PM

Thats actually not a bad idea not only to help out with the problem in this thread but just for overall keeping the game a bit cleaner. If someone stops playing, theres no point in leaving their land claim forever preventing anyone else from claiming that land. Though i think a day or so is a bit too fast, after all some (hopefully most) of us have live soutsid eof Xsyon and cant manage to be on every single day. Maybe a week or 2 would be pretty good. if someone doesnt login for a full week or 2, theyre likely not coming back so it would make sense to just get rid of the totems. If they ever do eventually come back to the game, theyll just have to setup a new homestead. In the case of someone simply being away and unable to login for awhile due to an emergency or vacation or whatever, perhaps they could just contact the staff and they could keep their totems active until their return.

On that note, What happens if a leader quits xsyon? Is power handed to the next higher up? What happens if there are multiple higher ups at the same level of power, who gets it then?

pendergraft

03-03-2011, 05:28 PM

On that note, What happens if a leader quits xsyon? Is power handed to the next higher up? What happens if there are multiple higher ups at the same level of power, who gets it then?

Going by the Official Post-Apocalyptic Bible that is Sir Kevin Costner's The Postman, a fight to the death should solve this particular problem.

kaisergod

03-03-2011, 05:30 PM

On that note, What happens if a leader quits xsyon? Is power handed to the next higher up? What happens if there are multiple higher ups at the same level of power, who gets it then?

Perhaps a tribal voting system. Its worked well in othe rgames ive used it in, such as RF Online. A tribe member can nominate a new leader, then the guild (or at least the senate/officers) vote Yes or No. If there are enough votes for it to pass, they become the new leader.

Jadzia

03-03-2011, 06:36 PM

On that note, What happens if a leader quits xsyon? Is power handed to the next higher up? What happens if there are multiple higher ups at the same level of power, who gets it then?

Yes, its handed to the next higher up. No idea what happens if there are more players with the same power.

Plague

03-04-2011, 02:50 AM

NexAnima

03-04-2011, 04:52 AM

Id tribe wants a homestead removed then they should negotiate with owner and offer him something in return for his terriroty. What is with all the "crash kill and destroy" attitude? This game is what you mke out of it and if you want to make a permament war zone then you can expect only resistance. Negotiations and trade is what works better in RL.

War
What is it good for
Absolutely nothing

Negotiations IRL only work because the alternative is war. War = death, Death = fear, Fear = power and Power = control.

This (all MMOs) game lacks one crucial piece, fear. There's no reason to fear anything anymore. You lose your stuff? Make some more. You died? respawn and carry on.

Once you bring back fear of actions or consequence then you will see societies and politics being to flourish.

Probein

03-04-2011, 04:52 AM

Didn't I read somewhere that they will be making single-player homesteads attackable/unsafe in future while Tribe homesteads will be safe?

NexAnima

03-04-2011, 04:54 AM

Didn't I read somewhere that they will be making single-player homesteads attackable/unsafe in future while Tribe homesteads will be safe?

No, I don't think any dev would want put a nail in the Xsyon coffin by singling out 1 playstyle like that.

Jadzia

03-04-2011, 06:12 AM

Didn't I read somewhere that they will be making single-player homesteads attackable/unsafe in future while Tribe homesteads will be safe?

No, they didn't say anything like that.

galagah

03-04-2011, 06:30 AM

Didn't I read somewhere that they will be making single-player homesteads attackable/unsafe in future while Tribe homesteads will be safe?

No , and if they did , then this game would lose at least 30% of its playerbase overnight ( judging that form the polls on peoples playstyles / how they will be setting up ) .

Marcolo

03-06-2011, 09:06 AM

As I was read through the thread, I can't help but think the problem is in the game mechanic itself. Reserving of land is a difficult proposition since it assumes growth (tribe will continue to add people), and requires that no other player infringes on the space/area/radius of the placed totem.

Which led to me to start thinking about the mechanics of the totem,and that having two (or three, if you count clans now too) different "types" of totems might be the issue.

What if the mechanic was changed, so that all totems were "homestead" size (50m, or whatever). As a player joined a tribe, their "homestead" would then be incorporated into the tribal space (marked as tribal land, and usable by the tribe)?

Effectively, this would mean a tribe would grow as players were added to the tribe and then placed their own totems to expand the tribal area. Conversely, if a player leaves, that area is no longer bound to the tribe. Tribal lands could then take on irregular shapes and grow around true homesteaders, without the worry of being blocked out by a single player.

Also, it would address land rush issues, since tribal formation is not solely dependent on formation prior to the claim. Essentially a "tribe" would be 2 or more players that have decided to aggregate their land for shared purpose.

Obviously there are programmatic issues (gaps between homesteads, maximum sizes of tribes, and a massive change in code) ... but it seems that it could/would address many of the issues raised in this thread?

Thoughts?