PDA

View Full Version : Feedback Request: Upgrade Tribe 2012-03-15



GuideRaguel
03-15-2012, 03:58 PM
Hello Xsyon Citizens!

The Test Server is up for Public testing. We are testing a revised Tribe upgrading system.Tribes can now upgrade from Homestead to Band to Clan to Tribe as members are added. Tribes will downgrade as usual if members are removed.

When a new Tribe is created, it will require placement at maximum distance from nearby Tribes, based on the starting tribe type of the new Tribe. (This is the same as what is already in place on the Main Server).

As a Tribe upgrades, its radius will increase ONLY if it is not blocked by the CURRENT radii of nearby Tribes. This will allow smaller Tribesto grow into unclaimed nearby territory and potentially block the full growth of nearby Tribes.

The Totem / Town information panel now displays the current Tribe type and radius at the top of the panel.

We will be testing and asking for feedback on this system (in the Developer Zone) over the weekend.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Hello everyone,

We would very much like your feedback regarding this.

Please let us know if there are any issues with the system.
And you can also post your suggestions here for this feature.

Thank you.

fatboy21007
03-15-2012, 04:25 PM
this has been a VERY VERY long asked for feature, Now if we can get the ability to remove and move* tribe totems without disbandin and we got a perfect setup.

Willowhawk
03-15-2012, 04:48 PM
this has been a VERY VERY long asked for feature, Now if we can get the ability to remove tribe totems without disbandin and we got a perfect setup.

Fatboy did you mean "Move tribe totems" rather than remove? because that was my first thought too. We can expand now, but only in the current area and that is going to put one of our tribe boundaries out over the cliff edge. :rolleyes:

MrDDT
03-15-2012, 04:52 PM
Fatboy did you mean "Move tribe totems" rather than remove? because that was my first thought too. We can expand now, but only in the current area and that is going to put one of our tribe boundaries out over the cliff edge. :rolleyes:


He means pick up a totem and replace it without dropping everyone out of the tribe.

Willowhawk
03-15-2012, 05:26 PM
He means pick up a totem and replace it without dropping everyone out of the tribe.

As your usual you state the obvious. I was referring to the action to "Move a totem" Example; Right click on totem, click "Move" Maybe an action something like architecture buildings, Or did he mean "Remove Totem" as in disband without losing members, then move half way across map and then "Place Totem". The first scenario should be easy to do, the second scenario would mean the ability to abandon your place (mess and all) without losing tribe members and start over in a new place.

brando
03-15-2012, 07:23 PM
Are we sure this is the best way to handle totem expansion? This proposed system would allow another tribe to grief a growing tribe by placing homesteads all around them. Is there any thought to an alternate? I understand the desire to protect smaller homesteads, but this could end up alienating larger tribes. I know there is always a fear of zerg tribes taking over everything, but could there be certain distances that scale back as the larger tribe expands? For example, up to 100 members a totem expands unhindered, but then as it hits smaller totems and homesteads it takes a penalty to its growth? The number is just an example. Also, is there any thought to a larger totem engulfing a smaller one? It wouldn't totally kill the smaller totem's claim, but it would surround it? Any thoughts?

KeithStone
03-15-2012, 07:40 PM
Are we sure this is the best way to handle totem expansion? This proposed system would allow another tribe to grief a growing tribe by placing homesteads all around them. Is there any thought to an alternate? I understand the desire to protect smaller homesteads, but this could end up alienating larger tribes. I know there is always a fear of zerg tribes taking over everything, but could there be certain distances that scale back as the larger tribe expands? For example, up to 100 members a totem expands unhindered, but then as it hits smaller totems and homesteads it takes a penalty to its growth? The number is just an example. Also, is there any thought to a larger totem engulfing a smaller one? It wouldn't totally kill the smaller totem's claim, but it would surround it? Any thoughts?

I agree with this, people could use alts (doesn't even have to be alts, just people that decide for whatever reason they want to do it) to grief larger tribes and block their expansion. Without the ability to conquer someones totem then that is a bad idea imo.

to the last part of what you said, you won't be able to do that and is how players could grief tribes and block their growth.

Xsyon
03-15-2012, 11:53 PM
This proposed system would allow another tribe to grief a growing tribe by placing homesteads all around them.


It wouldn't be so easy.

Here is an example of how this system works:

Tribe A has 20 members
- Current status is Tribe
- Current radius is 110 m
- Maximum growth radius is 200 m

Tribe B is a single player placing a Totem
- Current status is Homestead
- Current radius is 25 m
- Maximum growth radius, before upgrading, is 25 m

Tribe B's new Totem can only be placed outside of Tribe A's MAX GROWTH radius.

So Tribe B places a Totem at the closest point to Tribe A (225 m Tribe center to Tribe center)
Tribe B would need to add and keep 5 more members to upgrade to Band and start to limit Tribe A's maximum size.

The key element here is that a new Tribe can't be placed to limit another tribe's growth. It can only GROW to limit another tribe's growth.

We are considering other options.

- Allowing tribes to overlap or engulf a smaller Tribe within a larger Tribe is not an option. This would just complicate things too much and allow for additional griefing situations (for example a larger Tribe building a wall around an engulfed Homestead).

Option 1: Current Option
Tribes can upgrade type based on member count, unimpeded.
Tribes can grow in radius as long they are not impeded by another Tribe's CURRENT radius.

Option 2: Alternate Option
Tribes can upgrade type based on member count, unimpeded.
Tribes can grow in radius as long they are not impeded by another Tribe's MAXIMUM GROWTH radius.

This would prevent smaller new Tribes from inhibiting the radius growth of any Tribes currently at Tribe status. However, this would significantly reduce the options for growing Tribes to expand.

We could always start with Option 2 and switch to Option 1 in the future. The reverse (switching from Option 1 to 2) would cause more complications.

Feedback on both Options is greatly appreciated!

MrDDT
03-16-2012, 12:14 AM
IMO they all should be option #2. If any tribe is currently not fitting into option #2, they should hold the max they can at where current tribe radius are.

All new totems would have to respect a 200m radius area, unless they choose a no grow option. (So homesteads can band in a city like)

Current totems, would hold the max radius they can until it bumps into another totem max radius. Problem with this is who gets what radius?
Any new totems placed would check max radius of all totems (even if they are not using that radius).


I would rather have a system removed from # of players and use resources. Tribes buy the radius they want. If they cant afford that radius, they lose it.
Someone trying to "grief" another tribe would have to upkeep a totem just to grief, it wouldnt fix griefing with totem problems but it would limit it down greatly. I dont see any system fixing griefing totems as they are protected. Who is to say what a griefing totem is really. Someone could just like that spot and prevent people from growing.

Some system where players need to buy and upkeep totems is what is really needed. That way players can hold the land they want too, based on the cost they can afford, not in "theory" of what they can grow too.


For a new player working for a totem shouldnt be freely given. They should want to stay near founders isle for a while to learn the ropes and be safe. Then after they have build up some skills and resources think about a totem placement.
New players jumping into the world seem to always drop a totem, campfire, and basket and if they quit, its going to be there forever, even under the new system its going to be there for months.
All with no cost to the new players, or totem droppers.
One top of that, they have to place a totem (or feel like they have too) because of where they respawn.

Anyways, if you do it by "max" radius, there will be very few places to place a totem.

znaiika
03-16-2012, 05:45 AM
When placing a totem, have three choices: Homestead, clan and tribe, if someone want to place tribe totem? tribe totem checks for radius availability and what types of totems are around, if there is another tribe totem then maximum radius from both totems would be 400 meters, if a tribe totem locates near homestead totem then the radius should be 225 meters, and have radius for clan totem as well.
This is a simple solution and would not conflict with anyone.

KeithStone
03-16-2012, 05:46 AM
I would rather have a system removed from # of players and use resources. Tribes buy the radius they want. If they cant afford that radius, they lose it.
Someone trying to "grief" another tribe would have to upkeep a totem just to grief, it wouldnt fix griefing with totem problems but it would limit it down greatly. I dont see any system fixing griefing totems as they are protected. Who is to say what a griefing totem is really. Someone could just like that spot and prevent people from growing.

Some system where players need to buy and upkeep totems is what is really needed. That way players can hold the land they want too, based on the cost they can afford, not in "theory" of what they can grow too.


For a new player working for a totem shouldnt be freely given. They should want to stay near founders isle for a while to learn the ropes and be safe. Then after they have build up some skills and resources think about a totem placement.
New players jumping into the world seem to always drop a totem, campfire, and basket and if they quit, its going to be there forever, even under the new system its going to be there for months.
All with no cost to the new players, or totem droppers.
One top of that, they have to place a totem (or feel like they have too) because of where they respawn.

Anyways, if you do it by "max" radius, there will be very few places to place a totem.

your proposed system of using resource upkeep to get tribe growth is cool but I'm sure it would take a long time to implement something like this right now - the proposed system that jordi talks about works fine for now and is obviously almost done.

People at launch wanted this system that is on the test server now anyway, so there's no reason just yet to take the extra time to code something else that is more complicated and would take much longer - important thing imo is to get these systems in place that were most talked about at launch so when the older players get their accounts activated with free time they will be able to see that it's how they asked it to be.

fatboy21007
03-16-2012, 06:30 AM
why not just have new totems set for max growth, their still homesteads, but the system would have already planned out a tribes max growth. then if and when they reach it theirs no one in their way blocking them to expand. TBH this would not allow any griefing and after said amount of time if you didnt get that max size then the *reserved* space will shrink down to w/e size your totem is. This will allow both sides sufficient time for growth. Also wat i mean before is the ability to pick up ur totem and move the entire tribe else where *ie, new lands open up u n the pals pack it up n cart with ur totem to ur new home stick the totem back down to claim ur new home*. This kinda idea needs to have a 30 day timer on it to prevent big tribes from moving totems daily, but allows them to get a new home. Also the ability to move your totem once its down the same way ya do with ghost projects. I beleave all these ideas would make alot of folks happy, prevents greifing and promotes the idea of growth and exploration.

Willowhawk
03-16-2012, 07:29 AM
why not just have new totems set for max growth, their still homesteads, but the system would have already planned out a tribes max growth. then if and when they reach it theirs no one in their way blocking them to expand.

This is simple and effective, can't place unless sufficient room for max area. Might make finding a large enough place difficult once the server is populated, but I don't think having too many people will be a bad problem to have :D

Kegan
03-16-2012, 07:59 AM
why not just have new totems set for max growth, their still homesteads, but the system would have already planned out a tribes max growth. then if and when they reach it theirs no one in their way blocking them to expand.

I like this the best and maybe even add a 5-10m of a cushion too so there is no way a tribe will ever encroach on your area.

I also think there should be a way for a homestead to expand without adding members. Maybe if you prepay for 6 months or a year you would get some more land? This way the solo player could get more land if they wanted and the developer would get a longer subscription commitment.

MrDDT
03-16-2012, 09:05 AM
This is simple and effective, can't place unless sufficient room for max area. Might make finding a large enough place difficult once the server is populated, but I don't think having too many people will be a bad problem to have :D


The problem with this is that you cant place near someone if you wanted too. Meaning if you wanted to make a village of totems instead of 1 large tribal area, you couldnt you would have to place far away at max ranges.

Another problem is if everything was based off max growth size (200m radius) then there wouldnt be many spots to place at all.

KeithStone
03-16-2012, 09:10 AM
...then there wouldnt me many spots to place at all.

QFT

only way that would work is if you get rid of homesteads/clans/bands etc and we don't need to do that.

As much as I hate homesteads the game needs to appeal to those type of players as well.

MrDDT
03-16-2012, 09:10 AM
your proposed system of using resource upkeep to get tribe growth is cool but I'm sure it would take a long time to implement something like this right now - the proposed system that jordi talks about works fine for now and is obviously almost done.

People at launch wanted this system that is on the test server now anyway, so there's no reason just yet to take the extra time to code something else that is more complicated and would take much longer - important thing imo is to get these systems in place that were most talked about at launch so when the older players get their accounts activated with free time they will be able to see that it's how they asked it to be.


I didnt see this talked about at launch at all. Not sure how you can say its what people wanted at launch.

I also would rather have backended coding for something and working towards a system, then have them code something in that's not going to work very well at all. Which is how I see this current totem system.

With the max radius size now, you will have 1 man totems freely dropped holding down huge areas in "reserve". Heck what I would do is have a few extra accounts (easy to do for a large tribe) and control whole zones worth with my normal large totem tribe droppped (80+ members gets to use 200m radius) with 3 or 4 other single man totems placed around it holding anyone else at bay.


If people had to pay the upkeeps based on what they were, you wouldnt see this often. It would help so many things also in the economy and the worth of having a totem, and holding it. Greifing with totems would be a lot less when there is a cost, etc etc.

KeithStone
03-16-2012, 09:36 AM
I didnt see this talked about at launch at all. Not sure how you can say its what people wanted at launch.

as soon as they put in tribe's downgrading everyone asked for them to also upgrade, but it didn't happen - so yeah, almost everyone requested it to also work for upgrading.

MrDDT
03-16-2012, 09:42 AM
as soon as they put in tribe's downgrading everyone asked for them to also upgrade, but it didn't happen - so yeah, almost everyone requested it to also work for upgrading.


Oh you talking about the upgrading system gotcha. Yeah that was meant to be that way from day 1 I thought also. I fully think people will be happy with the auto upgrade, until they find out the other issues with it.

Sorta like the totem system we have had for the last 11 months, because everyone can drop a totem anywhere, you have issues with them.

This auto upgrade system is going to be a nightmare also like that, I dont see how to make it work well. I see it being put in without much thought to what is going to happen with the new players that join, and large tribes. Its going to cause so many problems and issues.


If I had to call it, I would see it going like this. Totems autoupgrade, you have tribes jockeying for any new player that joins just to keep growing, and huge totems controlled by 1 or 2 people.

The world will have almost no place to place still even after decay because Xsyon doesnt put in any system that can harm even 1 person for the greater good. So now we are left with huge death tribe totems everywhere, and people fighting over where a new player will join.

No one can say I'm bias on this also because I was screaming about this when IS-BC was a very small tribe and wanted to STAY small. Now we are the largest tribe, and I still hate the system and this new planned system.

Book
03-16-2012, 11:44 AM
I kind of would have thought people who wanted more conflict and a reason to fight would like option #1?

I get the thing about placing totems near each other for a village and option #2 might seem like it would go against that but the homesteaders I know are such because we like our space :)
Option #2 would mean we can start a loose knit community village type thing, and have our space from each other as well, without fear of someone plopping in the middle and expanding us out of home. Sounds kinda good to me.

Don't forget, we're only using 10% of the map right now, with much of the map ready for expansion if needed, and there are still a vast larger number of dead totems than live ones. I'm not entirely convinced there wouldn't be room.

znaiika
03-16-2012, 12:01 PM
I kind of would have thought people who wanted more conflict and a reason to fight would like option #1?

I get the thing about placing totems near each other for a village and option #2 might seem like it would go against that but the homesteaders I know are such because we like our space :)


Or have an option for homesteads to join together and form small villages.

Xsyon
03-16-2012, 12:02 PM
This discussion is getting a bit off track. I do like the ideas about having totems require upkeep, but that is something we plan to look into after the first round of totem decay runs. We also have some plans on how to deal with tribes full of inactive players, but these are also for the future. Right now we're just trying to implement Tribe growth as it was originally planned, then we'll continue with other pertinent features.

For now, I will clarify the changes.

- Initial tribe placement will not be changed.

- Tribes will be able to upgrade type without abandoning and forming a new Tribe. The radius of these expanded Tribe will be able to grow only if unimpeded by nearby Tribes.

We are testing two options:
1) Tribes can grow in radius, blocked by nearby Tribes CURRENT radius.
2) Tribes can grow in radius, blocked by nearby Tribes MAXIMUM growth radius (based on the CURRENT type of the nearby Tribes).

Right now the Test Server is running with Option 2. This Option has the least impact or difference from what is currently in game. The main goal is to allow growing Tribes to increase their type and size (if space allows) without pulling up and replanting a totem.

Willowhawk
03-16-2012, 12:49 PM
This discussion is getting a bit off track.
Yup we totally derailed this thread. :o I would pick option 2 if for no other reason to avoid people getting upset with someone encroaching too close and preventing them from any future expansion.

Kegan
03-16-2012, 12:50 PM
What's new? Every post in this forum goes off track..hehe

#2 sounds the best to me too

znaiika
03-16-2012, 01:08 PM
#2 is the choice for me too.

KeithStone
03-16-2012, 01:25 PM
#2 for me as well

MrDDT
03-16-2012, 04:02 PM
#2 for me as well.

Xsyon what about a buffer? Max+buffer?

Also it would upgrade off the current maximum right? Not 200 radius for each? So homesteads max would still be the current size of the starting, Band would start at 30m grow to like what 50m, but no would be able to upgrade near them due to the fact they are reserving the max right?
Which is sorta like the system we have now, only no auto upgrade for totems. Correct?

Kegan
03-16-2012, 04:35 PM
#2 for me as well.

Xsyon what about a buffer? Max+buffer?



I like the idea of having a buffer zone, no need to have a tribe right up on your walls if your max size.

brando
03-16-2012, 09:05 PM
I am all in favor of Option #2. I'm not sure how much extra work it would be, but could it be possible to give tribes the option to allow homesteads within their max growth area? Wurm currently does this and its great for multiple deeds that make up a larger city/town/village. Specifically, we had a deed for our city and another for our farms and yet a third for our harbor. They were spread out due to the mountain terrain we were in so it warranted the need for multiple deeds and Wurm allowed us the option to allow them placed within a closer proximity. Once we put them down then we turned that option off so other ppl couldn't place butting up against our borders. Maybe this could work for Xsyon? Have it so that the main totem with its 225 max range granted permission for homesteads within that range. But then you'd have to figure out a permission system to note which people could and which people couldn't unless you could turn it on just for a totem to drop then turn it off right away. That would allow folks to put down multiple homesteads for a quick and dirty village system.

Whorlok
03-16-2012, 09:44 PM
Simply...
all totems radius---->200 maximal
new totem can placed if a Radius of 400 is free ....

Drevar
03-18-2012, 03:11 PM
We had the max buffer on all totems at launch and it was an Epic Fail.

I'd prefer option 1. Coupled with a resource based upkeep and expansion purchasing it would introduce an entirely new kind of PvP that doesn't involve actual fighting.
In the absence of the resource based system, we NEED to have the system that accounts for inactive (non-subbed) players. That way if a blocking tribe can't keep up their active count and drops in radius, the other blocked tribe should auto-grow into the blocking tribe's previous space if they have enough players to do so.

With option 2 none of this is a worry at all. No changes at all except that you get the convenience of auto-growing, like DDT said above. If that was all that was intended, then fine #2 is best. But it seems like there was some sort of desire to add in extra conflict or logistics to the system. Option 2 doesn't really provide much of that at all.


If I'm not mistaken, there is already a buffer in place for totems other than homesteads, isn't there? The more buffers and reserved space you put in, the more you are going to return to the issues we had at launch where new people(heck not even new, just the initial crop of players) coming in simply couldn't find space to live due to it all being taken up by "may build here in the future, maybe..if I don't quit next week" space. Most of the time you couldn't even see the totems that were keeping you from placing.

MrDDT
03-18-2012, 03:22 PM
We had the max buffer on all totems at launch and it was an Epic Fail.

I'd prefer option 1. Coupled with a resource based upkeep and expansion purchasing it would introduce an entirely new kind of PvP that doesn't involve actual fighting.

If I'm not mistaken, there is already a buffer in place for totems other than homesteads, isn't there? The more buffers and reserved space you put in, the more you are going to return to the issues we had at launch where new people(heck not even new, just the initial crop of players) coming in simply couldn't find space to live due to it all being taken up by "may build here in the future, maybe..if I don't quit next week" space.

Right now the buffer is very very small less than 1m if any at all.

Also dont forget that totem decay is coming. So finding a place to drop a totem will be no a problem soon.

Drevar
03-18-2012, 03:42 PM
I thought there was a much larger buffer for totems larger than homestead. Homesteads are able to be placed right up against each other, but not the larger types. Ill try to dig up the notes that related to this back when the totem changes were put in.

Also, decay system may be coming soon, but that doesn't mean the totems will actually decay soon. Its going to be months before any are actually cleared from the landscape.

MrDDT
03-18-2012, 05:07 PM
I thought there was a much larger buffer for totems larger than homestead. Homesteads are able to be placed right up against each other, but not the larger types. Ill try to dig up the notes that related to this back when the totem changes were put in.

Also, decay system may be coming soon, but that doesn't mean the totems will actually decay soon. Its going to be months before any are actually cleared from the landscape.


Yeah people can place totems that touch our border on our 198.2(People say 200m is max, but 198.2m is) radius, with less than 1m buffer. Some were even able to grab baskets out of our lands by standing in their tribal lands is how close it was.


Yes, but I dont see a need to put in a bad or less good (Proper English?) system just because there might be a slight problem for a very short period of time that isnt game breaking.

fatboy21007
03-19-2012, 02:43 AM
remove it, 100% open world.

Kegan
03-19-2012, 05:53 PM
remove it, 100% open world.

If you remove the tribe area then whats the point in the game? People play the game to build and craft if you can't do this in safety then no one would play..well most would not

MrDDT
03-19-2012, 06:46 PM
If you remove the tribe area then whats the point in the game? People play the game to build and craft if you can't do this in safety then no one would play..well most would not


On top of that, other players can come by and mess up your area. Heck right now just right click dismantle takes 5 seconds. No thank you fatboy. I think we need a better system than that.

Azurfale
03-20-2012, 07:59 AM
As of right now, neither option benefits me unless totem decay comes in or I want to move. I like #2 but my only concern is the limited amount of totems there will be per zone. (don't get me wrong I love living off in the middle of nowhere with no neighbours, but I am sure not everyone feels this way.) So a 20 man tribe places a totem in the middle of the zone, it would limit that zone to 3 or 4 other totems of max size in that zone. (not a problem now as player base is still small but could be an issue in the future without hte map opening up.) I am not sure if I like the idea of a zone entirely encompassed by totems (not sure if that was the right word). I am very happy about auto expansion though, but like I said, without totem decay the rest is meaninglesss as of now.