Removing inactive players from tribe:

[znaiika]

Request to implement automatic system that will remove inactive players from tribe after 60 days.

This will prevent players to log in with their alts, join a tribe, to expand, and then never log in.

[banden]

Wrong forum, post in suggestions.

[Kegan]

I agree there should only be land rewards for active players not for a tribe that has members that have not played in years. maybe ask in the questions to the developers post?

[KeithStone]

auto-removing members is a bad idea imo, they just need to setup a system where the amount of members don't reflect your tribe growth and I'm sure later down the road we will get something more complicated that will work for everyone.

[MrDDT]

Ive asked for this many times. Basing the size of the tribe off "# of players" is a bad idea.

Tribes cant control who is active or not, and having a totem full of inactive players holding huge areas of land is not good.

It should be based on a resource system to see who is active, and also allow small tribes to grow however large they want. You can plan out how large you want to be and how long you can hold it. As Ive said other times, this system would have many benefits. Less greifing, players earning a totem so thinking more on how to place it, helps the economy, better planning, not having to zerg to grow etc.

[fatboy21007]

welp can always adopt wurms way. Ya buy a token with silvers and silvers are bought with RL cash. Now each upgrade will cost ya, upkeep will cost ya, even has a guard to handle the wildlife. I like this system, helps the devs with money, and gives the paying players the land they want. in the end every1 wins. Ofc sub costs would have to drop to make it worth while having, but in the end, the game gains alot of money and people get wat they want. Win-Win. (these silvers are also used to buy items ingame from other players, This type of econ works very well, as long as ya dont take it further then stated.)

[KeithStone]

welp can always adopt wurms way. Ya buy a token with silvers and silvers are bought with RL cash. Now each upgrade will cost ya, upkeep will cost ya, even has a guard to handle the wildlife. I like this system, helps the devs with money, and gives the paying players the land they want. in the end every1 wins. Ofc sub costs would have to drop to make it worth while having, but in the end, the game gains alot of money and people get wat they want. Win-Win. (these silvers are also used to buy items ingame from other players, This type of econ works very well, as long as ya dont take it further then stated.)

this is a horrible idea!

doesn't matter though Jordi would never do something like this, I imagine they will eventually do something like ddt's suggestion or a much simpler version of his suggestion.

[MrDDT]

welp can always adopt wurms way. Ya buy a token with silvers and silvers are bought with RL cash. Now each upgrade will cost ya, upkeep will cost ya, even has a guard to handle the wildlife. I like this system, helps the devs with money, and gives the paying players the land they want. in the end every1 wins. Ofc sub costs would have to drop to make it worth while having, but in the end, the game gains alot of money and people get wat they want. Win-Win. (these silvers are also used to buy items ingame from other players, This type of econ works very well, as long as ya dont take it further then stated.)


Not really sure where you get that it works well, can you please point me to games where it works well?

We already paid 40$ for the game, 15$ a month and now to have a totem we have to play X$ a month more? With no real options NOT to have a totem? Doesnt sound like a good system, nor does it sound like any other game system I know.

[fatboy21007]

Sure,------------> points to wurm online. Been workin well for that game for over 5 years now. Id say the system works. Anyhow its just an idea.

[Willowhawk]

I think something as simple as tribe size based on "active players" would work. Players that have not logged on in a month (Inactive) still belong to the tribe, but no longer effect tribe size. This would create a direct relationship of active members to tribe size. Few players = smaller tribe area. Many players = larger tribe size.

[znaiika]

Ive asked for this many times. Basing the size of the tribe off "# of players" is a bad idea.

Tribes cant control who is active or not, and having a totem full of inactive players holding huge areas of land is not good.

It should be based on a resource system to see who is active, and also allow small tribes to grow however large they want. You can plan out how large you want to be and how long you can hold it. As Ive said other times, this system would have many benefits. Less greifing, players earning a totem so thinking more on how to place it, helps the economy, better planning, not having to zerg to grow etc.

I must agree on your point, well said.

[Rose7683]

welp can always adopt wurms way. you havnt forgot that wurm is a F2P game have you ?




Ya buy a token with silvers and silvers are bought with RL cash.
Now each upgrade will cost ya, upkeep will cost ya, even has a guard to handle the wildlife.
I like this system, helps the devs with money, and gives the paying players the land they want. in the end every1 wins. Not sure it helps devs really much, but I guess Rolf wont tell how much he get in each month :)
Lots of people playing wurm, work for other or sell items they crafted
to get money for the upkeep, instead of buing the silver from Rolf's shop
here all need to pay the monthly fee




Ofc sub costs would have to drop to make it worth while having, but in the end, the game gains alot of money and people get wat they want. Win-Win. (these silvers are also used to buy items ingame from other players, This type of econ works very well, as long as ya dont take it further then stated.)

sub cost needs to go away if you want us to have an shop to buy from
and using shop in game (?) then i say we shall not pay for the game at all,
so only money that comes in to owner is those from the players that want to suport the owner
And I guess owner here had to pay back money to all those already bought the game
like other that start to sell game and then change to F2P with item(money)shop
nah i dont think its a win win

you prefer some ppl buy gamemoney from the shop and lots of ppl work for other players ingame to get hold of those gamemoney instead of buying from the shop ?
couse that is the wurmway

and with that way not all people get what they want couse I want a game with monthly fee so I know my cost each month :)
or I could have stayed in wurm and help Rolf's wallet get even more fat ;)

[KeithStone]

just so you all know they do have plans for doing something with inactive players so you can move on to other topics...


...We also have some plans on how to deal with tribes full of inactive players, but these are also for the future.

[MrDDT]

Sure,------------> points to wurm online. Been workin well for that game for over 5 years now. Id say the system works. Anyhow its just an idea.

First off, Wurm online doesnt use Xsyon's system nor the system you said it does.

Second, I wouldnt say its working for them at all. They have lost most of the devs working on the project, and its barely staying afloat.


I think something as simple as tribe size based on "active players" would work. Players that have not logged on in a month (Inactive) still belong to the tribe, but no longer effect tribe size. This would create a direct relationship of active members to tribe size. Few players = smaller tribe area. Many players = larger tribe size.


My problem is, what if you have people that have canceled their accounts?
What about people that are paying for an account but not logged on?

How are tribe leaders able to judge how large of an area they are to manage based on the # of people actively playing?

How are tribe leaders able to preplan tribe radius? Meaning if they start with 5 people, but expect it to grow to 80 people.

What about tribes that want to stay small in the # of people yet, control a large area? No options for them at all. They must zerg recruit people that they dont even want in their tribe, to use the land.

All around I dont see any solid points of using this system.

The only reason I can see using "active" (whatever active term you want to use) is to give land rights to people actively playing. Well resource system does that. If you want a large area, you actively have to pay the upkeep.

[Rykard]

My suggestion would be to use something more like Haven and Hearth's village Authority system (http://ringofbrodgar.com/wiki/Authority). I'm sure in-game activity, or even man-hours logged in, could somehow be used instead of HnH's LP gain system to keep the pool filled. And tribal claim size could be "bought" and maintained with said pool, giving the tribe of 5-10 heavily active players the same amount of spatial influence in the game as the tribe of 50+ hour-a-week players.

[MrDDT]

My suggestion would be to use something more like Haven and Hearth's village Authority system (http://ringofbrodgar.com/wiki/Authority). I'm sure in-game activity, or even man-hours logged in, could somehow be used instead of HnH's LP gain system to keep the pool filled. And tribal claim size could be "bought" and maintained with said pool, giving the tribe of 5-10 heavily active players the same amount of spatial influence in the game as the tribe of 50+ hour-a-week players.


Not a fan of a system you cant plan out.
At least the hourly you can plan a bit. But then again you just have people logging in afk.

I dont see why you dont use a resource system. Its simply, understandable and fits the play style.

[fatboy21007]

first off, they have alot of devs on it atm, donno where ur info is coming from, secondly , I know it has this system, Cuz im using it ingame on wurm. Pay for a big deed, pay for premy monthly. And they have 100x more pop then xsyon. Obviously this system is workin for them. It was just an idea, This is 1 area u cant argue me to death on dude as thats the game i took a break too!..lol. but here lemme break downt he system for ya. Costs 10 euros to get 2 months premuim time. Ya need premy and 10 silver which is 10 more euro's to buy a deed form. Then ya create your deed on the land ya chose, Then ya use Silvers to upgrade the token to your desired size, and then pay the small upkeep fee, which u can choose to have X many guards to protect ya from animals. (amount of guards is dependant on deed size and costs 2s per guard and its 1s upkeep per month.) People spend 100's a month on this game, their is alot of server and the pve hold about 200 actives around the clock who gladly shell the RL cash out for silvers. So yes this system can and does work. Some arent a fan or it and some are. All im saying is This kinda system can benifit xsyon if he ever went that route.

[MrDDT]

first off, they have alot of devs on it atm, donno where ur info is coming from, secondly , I know it has this system, Cuz im using it ingame on wurm. Pay for a big deed, pay for premy monthly. And they have 100x more pop then xsyon. Obviously this system is workin for them. It was just an idea, This is 1 area u cant argue me to death on dude as thats the game i took a break too!..lol. but here lemme break downt he system for ya. Costs 10 euros to get 2 months premuim time. Ya need premy and 10 silver which is 10 more euro's to buy a deed form. Then ya create your deed on the land ya chose, Then ya use Silvers to upgrade the token to your desired size, and then pay the small upkeep fee, which u can choose to have X many guards to protect ya from animals. (amount of guards is dependant on deed size and costs 2s per guard and its 1s upkeep per month.) People spend 100's a month on this game, their is alot of server and the pve hold about 200 actives around the clock who gladly shell the RL cash out for silvers. So yes this system can and does work. Some arent a fan or it and some are. All im saying is This kinda system can benifit xsyon if he ever went that route.


"Until early 2011 Rolf was the only employee of OneTooFree AB, but recently he has employed two additional developers, Haradur and Wox. On October 12, 2011, OneTwoFree AB was renamed Code Club AB (www.codeclub.se)."

Sited from here
http://www.wurmonline.com/wiki/index.php?title=Dev

I'm not sure how you know how they have 100x more than Xsyon when you dont even know Xsyon's population. Unless that info was given out and I didnt know about it? Can you tell me where that info is for both?

You dont need premium, or premuim to play it.

Also dont forget the guards cost more if you put them into a war state =P

Again, I wouldnt say Wurm Online is a "success" story of Sandbox games. Not able to pay for the devs for a long time and just now only able to afford a couple more devs. Unlike EVE online, who has something like 500+ employees.
Also EVE has won many awards.
EVE also has 10s of thousands of people online, and 100k+ active subs.

Just FYI Ive played WURM online for years myself on and off.
Ive had both premium and free accounts.

More sited INFO just in case you wanted to know about Devs of EVE.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CCP_Games

Now can you please show me some of your facts and not just your "feelings"?

Maybe to you 1 to 3 devs is a lot, but its not. Also not when you count that a good bit of that time was 1 person.

[fatboy21007]

Guess ur not counting the volunteer devs in the community ethier :-P. Also i can type a command on that game to see how many is on, THis is how i know its pop. and yes u can play for free, but u cant skill past 20 ethier. However, neither of these games arent eve online, they have their own niche form that caters to certain crowds. Now, Go check the wiki on the game and ull see theirs alot more then 3 devs on it. However im not here to promote that game, I'm here simply giving and idea i see works. Which also helps create more funds for the devs to use. Now do you have a way that u can show works to help these hard workin devs to helpem gain more money? If so by all means share the opinion, as thats all this is. And this little bickering moment reminded me why im still on break. (and fyi i played eve bout 6 years now, eves system could work in xsyon, however it would require the entire game to be rewritten for those kinda systems to work here, n that kinda time these devs dont have). So i simply tossed an idea to helpem out.

[MrDDT]

Guess ur not counting the volunteer devs in the community ethier :-P. Also i can type a command on that game to see how many is on, THis is how i know its pop. and yes u can play for free, but u cant skill past 20 ethier. However, neither of these games arent eve online, they have their own niche form that caters to certain crowds. Now, Go check the wiki on the game and ull see theirs alot more then 3 devs on it. However im not here to promote that game, I'm here simply giving and idea i see works. Which also helps create more funds for the devs to use. Now do you have a way that u can show works to help these hard workin devs to helpem gain more money? If so by all means share the opinion, as thats all this is. And this little bickering moment reminded me why im still on break. (and fyi i played eve bout 6 years now, eves system could work in xsyon, however it would require the entire game to be rewritten for those kinda systems to work here, n that kinda time these devs dont have). So i simply tossed an idea to helpem out.


Didnt see the command to show how many people are playing Xsyon.

Didn't know we were counting people that were not paid and may or may not be working on the game. Those people you see are not all coders or devs. They are also helpers. Like guides.

I already said the system. Its a lot like EVE's.

Changing the current system to the one you think works would take a lot of work also. If you are going to change the system why not use the best (or at least better option) of EVE's system? Or closer to EVE's system? Instead of using a system that clearly is not as strong?

[Kegan]

I would not be against a resource system as long as it was not a nightmare to keep up with. Don't forget that there are casual players out there that only play a few times a week and don't want to spend all there time finding stuff to keep there tribe lands.

As far as the system we have now i would say a person is active if there subscription is paid or not. If a persons subscription is canceled and stays that way for more then 30 days there inactive and removed from the tribe.

[Book]

I would not be against a resource system as long as it was not a nightmare to keep up with. Don't forget that there are casual players out there that only play a few times a week and don't want to spend all there time finding stuff to keep there tribe lands.

As far as the system we have now i would say a person is active if there subscription is paid or not. If a persons subscription is canceled and stays that way for more then 30 days there inactive and removed from the tribe.

This pretty much sums up my thoughts on the subject as well.

[Atlantica]

I agree with Znaiika,

I have seen big tribes that have around 70 % inactive players , and they holding huge land.
The industrial strenght is a example of that.

[banden]

I agree with Znaiika,

I have seen big tribes that have around 70 % inactive players , and they holding huge land.
The industrial strenght is a example of that.

Lol, IS is like the most active tribe around, they might have inactive people inflating their tribeland but I would say they are the least fitting example...

[KeithStone]

Lol, IS is like the most active tribe around, they might have inactive people inflating their tribeland but I would say they are the least fitting example...

I say perfect example

[MrDDT]

I agree, however, if you notice how IS-BC is built. The # of actives we have will still support what we have built.

We built our city based on the tribe size of only 25 members. Even though our land extends out 90m more, we havnt used it to build up. Ive been expecting a system change this is why we have built it like this.

The biggest problem is the simple fact there is no way to plan how many actives are going to stay playing, thus you cant plan how large you should build your tribe.

I'm 100% in favor of kicking our all inactives. Unlike most tribes, IS-BC is likely one of the few tribes that will not have to worry about things outside its radius if they were to remove the inactives.

Many other tribes that hold huge areas will be dropped down to 1 man totems (25m radius) and lose all the work they have done. I dont think thats right either without some type of warning.
Which is also why I hate the current system being based off # of players in a tribe, and I dont like the idea of it being based of # of actives. There is no way to plan how many people you will have active from 1 week to the next, or worse 1 month to the next.

I think its funny that you point out Industrial Strength, yet its one of the only tribes that have enough actives to support its area.

You should point the finger at other tribes like, Pawnee, Hopi, PG, Pandemic, Audacia, DarkHand of Valor, Templars, etc. These tribes would be lucky if they have 1 or 2 active members.

[fatboy21007]

my tribes got more then 5 active, they are with me in wurm, waiting :-P. However, punishing all of us bigger tribes who has been here since the game launched is a bad idea also. I kept my tribe active for almost a year, and i can tell ya now, its almost impossible to hold 30 actives beyond 1 month. Most of the time ur left with 2-10 actives. Not are fault folks dont stick around, this is a problam that has plagued xsyon since launch and will always plague this game. So no matter if ya choose a material based system or keep the current. No one will be able to reach 30 -80 member tribes without hitin the inactive barrier. always ends the same way no matter wat. DDT got lucky when the pop started pickin up. eventually that trend dies off and then ur left with a ton of inactives, then the pop picks up again and repeats. So w/e way the devs decides ALL tribes need to be factored in and the current issues that plague all are tribes from trying to keep active.

[MrDDT]

my tribes got more then 5 active, they are with me in wurm, waiting :-P. However, punishing all of us bigger tribes who has been here since the game launched is a bad idea also. I kept my tribe active for almost a year, and i can tell ya now, its almost impossible to hold 30 actives beyond 1 month. Most of the time ur left with 2-10 actives. Not are fault folks dont stick around, this is a problam that has plagued xsyon since launch and will always plague this game. So no matter if ya choose a material based system or keep the current. No one will be able to reach 30 -80 member tribes without hitin the inactive barrier. always ends the same way no matter wat. DDT got lucky when the pop started pickin up. eventually that trend dies off and then ur left with a ton of inactives, then the pop picks up again and repeats. So w/e way the devs decides ALL tribes need to be factored in and the current issues that plague all are tribes from trying to keep active.


If a tribe cant keep 30 to 80 actives, then they shouldnt have a 30 to 80 active sized tribal area.

My problem isnt the size of the tribe, its at as tribe leader there is no way for me to plan from week to week what size my tribe will be, so I have to plan for a very very small area.

Again my tribe is built up on the fact we can keep 25 active accounts, so Ive planned my city that way. Even though we have 100+ members and maxed out at 200m radius. Nothing outside the 25 member range is built on.

If they change the system, IS is likely still going to be ok, as we have more than enough actives in game to cover this. The problem is still there, there is no way to plan from week to week what size your tribe will be.

Using a resource system instead of a # of actives, or # of players. Allows tribes large and small to plan however, they want. They know they have to upkeep X amount of resources per week to keep the tribe the size they want. Also if they want to grow, they know how many resources they will need for that size.

This resource amount isnt going to change. So if they lose 10 members out of 20, they would still have to put in the same amount of resources as before. Now they can choose to keep paying the resources of the current size, or make plans to goto a small size to support the resources they feel they can get.

[simple69]

I agree with Znaiika,

I have seen big tribes that have around 70 % inactive players , and they holding huge land.
The industrial strenght is a example of that.

lol, you been in the game probably less than a week and you make this acquisition? Please provide some evidence of this? We have 25 actively playing members right now at all times of the day as we have many EU players as well.

[Willowhawk]

lol, you been in the game probably less than a week and you make this acquisition? Please provide some evidence of this? We have 25 actively playing members right now at all times of the day as we have many EU players as well.

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.

[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.