PDA

View Full Version : Tribal Territory Size Answer



Oakstead
05-02-2010, 03:39 AM
I asked Jordi a FAQ question about how large tribal territories would be since this will affect so much at the start of the game and received this answer.


Right now it’s a 100 meter diameter starting tribal territory, increasing 5 meters per additional player. This might be increased. We’ll see how it feels with a few active tribes.

For those who might not know the starting tribal size for claiming territory is 10.

dragonstripes
05-02-2010, 04:20 AM
So if I'm reading this correctly, basically the first 10 people, which are required, are worth 10 meters. Then every additional is worth 5 meters, correct? So a starting tribe of 10 players starts with 100 meters. A tribe of 15 would have 125 meters.

Off topic... why does everything in this game use the metric system?

Zennoya
05-02-2010, 04:42 AM
Because most of world use metric system, and countries where developers came from also use metric system :P

Only few countries (including USA) uses other systems. Check globe map here (http://pl.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Plik:World_metrication.svg&filetimestamp=20090908180316).

edaw22
05-02-2010, 06:36 AM
Cause Metric's better.

Farmerbob
05-02-2010, 06:47 AM
Oakstead wrote:

I asked Jordi a FAQ question about how large tribal territories would be since this will affect so much at the start of the game and received this answer.


Right now it’s a 100 meter diameter starting tribal territory, increasing 5 meters per additional player. This might be increased. We’ll see how it feels with a few active tribes.

For those who might not know the starting tribal size for claiming territory is 10.

This might be a problem if the game really takes off. 5m per person radius begins to add up to some pretty darn huge area numbers pretty fast once you get a couple dozen people in a village.

pid73
05-02-2010, 07:33 AM
good question, good answer.
this is a friendly bump.

EDIT: +thanks for sharing

Derek
05-02-2010, 07:54 AM
Farmerbob wrote:

Oakstead wrote:

I asked Jordi a FAQ question about how large tribal territories would be since this will affect so much at the start of the game and received this answer.


Right now it’s a 100 meter diameter starting tribal territory, increasing 5 meters per additional player. This might be increased. We’ll see how it feels with a few active tribes.

For those who might not know the starting tribal size for claiming territory is 10.

This might be a problem if the game really takes off. 5m per person radius begins to add up to some pretty darn huge area numbers pretty fast once you get a couple dozen people in a village.

Probably shouldn't be a linear relationship. Should be inverse exponential.

pid73
05-02-2010, 08:23 AM
Derek wrote:

Farmerbob wrote:

Oakstead wrote:

I asked Jordi a FAQ question about how large tribal territories would be since this will affect so much at the start of the game and received this answer.


Right now it’s a 100 meter diameter starting tribal territory, increasing 5 meters per additional player. This might be increased. We’ll see how it feels with a few active tribes.

For those who might not know the starting tribal size for claiming territory is 10.

This might be a problem if the game really takes off. 5m per person radius begins to add up to some pretty darn huge area numbers pretty fast once you get a couple dozen people in a village.

Probably shouldn't be a linear relationship. Should be inverse exponential.

It actually is quadratic. If n is the number of members in a tribe (at least 10), then the territory available to the tribe is:


T = pi * (50 + 5 * n)^2 / 4

The division by 4 is due to the fact that Jordi was talking about the diameter, while the surface of the disk is computed with the radius.

From the formula you can see that every new member adds a lot of territory to the tribe. To know better how much more consider this table:


Members | Territory (m^2) | Diff from prev. row
10 | 07854 | n/a
15 | 12272 | +4418
20 | 17671 | +5399
25 | 24053 | +6382
30 | 31416 | +7363

Alfred
05-02-2010, 10:20 AM
T = pi * (50 + 5 * n)^2 / 4

It's actually: pi * (50 + 2,5 * n)^2 because an addition to the diameter is always half the addition to the radius. Since the equation for the area of a circle is pi*r^2, we are using the radius and the division by 4 is a mistake.

It still means that to dominate the world (120km^2) you will need about 760 people in the same tribe.

Farmerbob
05-02-2010, 10:38 AM
Area claimed equation:

Assume base 100m diameter, 50m radius with 10 players.

Assume +5mm diameter, +2.5m radius per +1 character above 10.


Area = 3.14159 * (50 + [(players -10)*(2.5)])^2)

For a 50 player village they will control a village with a radius of (50+ (40*2.5)) or 150m

The really rapid growth of controlled area doesn't start until there are a LOT of villagers. The growth in radius is always linear.

In other words, the bigger the radius, the more of a difference one more player will make.

If the game gets truly popular, this could cause issues, but I can't see it happening with server populations below a couple thousand, unless almost everyone bands together in one town for some odd reason.

Oakstead
05-02-2010, 10:56 AM
Both Farmerbob's formula and pid73's formulas are correct (you beat me too it!).

This produces the following results:

10 player tribe = 7,850 square meter area (100 meter diameter)
20 player tribe = 17,662 square meter area (150 meter diameter)
30 player tribe = 31,400 square meter area (200 meter diameter)
40 player tribe = 49,062 square meter area (250 meter diameter)
50 player tribe = 70,650 square meter area (300 meter diameter)

This scheme for tribal areas encourages tribes to have only one identity instead of breaking up into sub-tribes with each having their own area because a 20 player tribe will have more area then two 10 player tribes. This pattern continues no matter the number of players in a tribe.

Edited to say pid73's formula is correct and just a different version of Farmerbob's

Jadzia
05-02-2010, 11:05 AM
I wonder if there is a limit for the population of tribes.

pid73
05-02-2010, 11:56 AM
Alfred wrote:


T = pi * (50 + 5 * n)^2 / 4

It's actually: pi * (50 + 2,5 * n)^2 because an addition to the diameter is always half the addition to the radius. Since the equation for the area of a circle is pi*r^2, we are using the radius and the division by 4 is a mistake.

It still means that to dominate the world (120km^2) you will need about 760 people in the same tribe.

Are you really sure about what you said?
Why don't you open up Excel and run some numbers?

for example:
20 members raise the diameter to 150m (100m + 50m). That's a radius of 75m, encircling an area of 17671 m^2.

That's exactly what I get with my formula.

Your formula for 20 members is wrong. I punch the number 20 into your formula and get:

pi * (50 + 2,5 * 20)^2

That is a radius of 100m, which means the diameter should be 200m. But 20 members do not give you a diameter of 200m, but 150m.

pid73
05-02-2010, 11:58 AM
Oakstead wrote:

Farmerbob's formula is correct (you beat me too it!).

This produces the following results:

10 player tribe = 7,850 square meter area (100 meter diameter)
20 player tribe = 17,662 square meter area (150 meter diameter)
30 player tribe = 31,400 square meter area (200 meter diameter)
40 player tribe = 49,062 square meter area (250 meter diameter)
50 player tribe = 70,650 square meter area (300 meter diameter)

This scheme for tribal areas encourages tribes to have only one identity instead of breaking up into sub-tribes with each having their own area because a 20 player tribe will have more area then two 10 player tribes. This pattern continues no matter the number of players in a tribe.

Do you see any difference with my forumla?
I don't. The numbers are the same.

I just take steps of 5 members while Farmerbob takes steps of 10 members.

Derek
05-02-2010, 12:07 PM
Guys, you misunderstood me. Btw, your both talking about the same formula A=pi*D^2/4=pi*r^2.

What I meant was that each additional tribe member should add less and less to the diameter, diminishing returns.

Oakstead
05-02-2010, 12:13 PM
You're right Pid73, your formula is correct as well. Sorry for not seeing that in my rush to get the data up.

Farmerbob
05-02-2010, 12:19 PM
Derek wrote:

Guys, you misunderstood me. Btw, your both talking about the same formula A=pi*D^2/4=pi*r^2.

What I meant was that each additional tribe member should add less and less to the diameter, diminishing returns.

Your heart is in the right place but:

Assume R = D/2

D^2/4 is not equivalent to R^2 over any range.

I think you meant A = pi*((D/2)^2) = pi*(R^2)

I did not look back to verify, I'm only going by what I see above.

Farmerbob
05-02-2010, 12:24 PM
Jadzia wrote:

I wonder if there is a limit for the population of tribes.

I strongly doubt that any tribe large enough to actually control a significant area on the server will be able to maintain cohesiveness. The biggest corporation in EVE that I can recall was EVE University, a training corp, and I do not believe their membership ever exceeded 2000 players, with an active playerbase of 200,000+ Alliances on the other hand got rather larger at times, but they are not single political units.

Sure Xsyon is not EVE, but they are both Sandbox, and share a lot of game dynamics, even if the background for said dynamics is drastically different.

pid73
05-02-2010, 12:29 PM
Oakstead wrote:

You're right Pid73, your formula is correct as well. Sorry for not seeing that in my rush to get the data up.

Don't be sorry, maybe I sounded wrong in the previous post.
I wanted to point it out but was by no means "offended"...
I had to put this in that post: :silly:

Derek
05-02-2010, 12:32 PM
Farmerbob wrote:

Derek wrote:

Guys, you misunderstood me. Btw, your both talking about the same formula A=pi*D^2/4=pi*r^2.

What I meant was that each additional tribe member should add less and less to the diameter, diminishing returns.

Your heart is in the right place but:

Assume R = D/2

D^2/4 is not equivalent to R^2 over any range.

I think you meant A = pi*((D/2)^2) = pi*(R^2)

I did not look back to verify, I'm only going by what I see above.

Ok, I don't mean to get into a pissing contest over something so trivial, but I use that formula every day at work (I'm a structural engineer). Your not reading it correctly A=pi*(D^2)/4=pi*r^2

Natedagreat
05-02-2010, 12:41 PM
lol i love how this thread got turned into a math thread.


On a side note i agree with the fact that it shouldnt be this way. Territory control should decrease in increments as you increase in the population of the tribe.

As it is now its more profitable (more territory control) to have one trible of 50 instead of two tribes of 25. I hope it to be changed so this game is a lot more smaller tribes instead of giant zergs.

Jadzia
05-02-2010, 12:43 PM
Farmerbob wrote:

Jadzia wrote:

I wonder if there is a limit for the population of tribes.

I strongly doubt that any tribe large enough to actually control a significant area on the server will be able to maintain cohesiveness. The biggest corporation in EVE that I can recall was EVE University, a training corp, and I do not believe their membership ever exceeded 2000 players, with an active playerbase of 200,000+ Alliances on the other hand got rather larger at times, but they are not single political units.

Sure Xsyon is not EVE, but they are both Sandbox, and share a lot of game dynamics, even if the background for said dynamics is drastically different.
Wow 2000 players would mean a huge tribe and they would cover about 80 km2....I don't know how big is the whole area of Xsyon, but 80 km2 sounds a lot to me.

Btw, (D^2)/4 is equal with R^2.

pid73
05-02-2010, 12:51 PM
Natedagreat wrote:


Territory control should decrease in increments as you increase in the population of the tribe.


Yeah, I agree.

Farmerbob
05-02-2010, 12:52 PM
Derek wrote:


Ok, I don't mean to get into a pissing contest over something so trivial, but I use that formula every day at work (I'm a structural engineer). Your not reading it correctly A=pi*(D^2)/4=pi*r^2

Yup, my bad, I was misreading it somehow.

I'm glad I relooked before firing back with a comment about engineers using pounds mass in thermodynamics :P

Farmerbob
05-02-2010, 12:55 PM
pid73 wrote:

Natedagreat wrote:


Territory control should decrease in increments as you increase in the population of the tribe.


Yeah, I agree.

Up to a certain point I agree, provided that large tribes get non-area benefits. Defensive bonuses, special buildings, etc.

Natedagreat
05-02-2010, 12:58 PM
Farmerbob wrote:

pid73 wrote:

Natedagreat wrote:


Territory control should decrease in increments as you increase in the population of the tribe.


Yeah, I agree.

Up to a certain point I agree, provided that large tribes get non-area benefits. Defensive bonuses, special buildings, etc.

what do you mean by "defensive bonuses, special buildings"?

More people to defend = defensive bonuses...you don't need anymore than that.

As for special buildings...I may or may not agree....tbh i don't know enough of how they do that sort of thing in game to base my opinion.

Jadzia
05-02-2010, 01:02 PM
Farmerbob wrote:

pid73 wrote:

Natedagreat wrote:


Territory control should decrease in increments as you increase in the population of the tribe.


Yeah, I agree.

Up to a certain point I agree, provided that large tribes get non-area benefits. Defensive bonuses, special buildings, etc.
Why should large tribes get bonuses ? It doesn't add anything to the game experience if a few large tribes rule the whole game. Its much better to give a population limit like 50 or max 100 members.

Iron Maiden
05-02-2010, 01:17 PM
ZERRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRGS

Farmerbob
05-02-2010, 01:59 PM
Defensive bonuses for large towns make sense, IMHO, but only in conjunction with special buildings. A large town will perhaps have the ability to build and maintain a cut stone curtain wall, which a hamlet almost certainly would not. This would give a defensive bonus, and I would suggest that the ability to create and maintain larger defensive structures (walls, towers, keeps!) be limited based on population.

If you have a couple fairly large towns which don't eat up half the map, it means there's more room out there for people who don't want to be part of a big town.

The geometric progression of the above mentioned method might not ever be a severe game problem. It might well be that the mist would automatically pull back and give us more land based on how much land is claimed by towns (this would be really cool) but until we know how it all _really_ works, any argument is sortof pointless.

Natedagreat
05-02-2010, 02:13 PM
Farmerbob wrote:

until we know how it all _really_ works, any argument is sortof pointless.

qft

Without more information anything we theorize about could be completely moot.

Jadzia
05-02-2010, 02:55 PM
My opinion is that huge tribes are more of a problem, not something the game should encourage. From the point of the long-term success of the game it has to be attractive for new players. If there are huge (500-1000 members) tribes, a new player will never get the opportunity to form a competitive tribe. And if the big tribes don't accept newbies (which happens pretty often in games), a new player would feel that he has no chance to get the same game experience as the veteran players got. Its a bad game design when the players who join later can't have the same options as the veterans.

If there was a population limit for tribes, something about 50 members, anyone could form a new tribe and wouldn't be hopelessly lagging behind the old ones. The gameplay would be more diverse too, more alliences, more conflicts, more trading. When a game is ruled by 2-3 big clans then it usually starts to get boring, and on the way to die.

Okie
05-02-2010, 03:12 PM
Jadzia wrote:

My opinion is that huge tribes are more of a problem, not something the game should encourage. From the point of the long-term success of the game it has to be attractive for new players. If there are huge (500-1000 members) tribes, a new player will never get the opportunity to form a competitive tribe. And if the big tribes don't accept newbies (which happens pretty often in games), a new player would feel that he has no chance to get the same game experience as the veteran players got. Its a bad game design when the players who join later can't have the same options as the veterans.

If there was a population limit for tribes, something about 50 members, anyone could form a new tribe and wouldn't be hopelessly lagging behind the old ones. The gameplay would be more diverse too, more alliences, more conflicts, more trading. When a game is ruled by 2-3 big clans then it usually starts to get boring, and on the way to die.


+ 1 to all of this

JCatano
05-02-2010, 03:19 PM
Don't limit the size of a tribe. Apply diminishing returns to space.

gregulate
05-02-2010, 03:21 PM
What happens when two tribes grow to the point of overlapping land? I would think it just forms a border so expansion is no longer possible in that direction. That could be a problem for a tribe surrounded by other tribes but I have no idea of how it works in game.

Jadzia
05-02-2010, 03:24 PM
gregulate wrote:

What happens when two tribes grow to the point of overlapping land? I would think it just forms a border so expansion is no longer possible in that direction. That could be a problem for a tribe surrounded by other tribes but I have no idea of how it works in game.
Good question, would be nice to get some info about it.

JCatano wrote:

Apply diminishing returns to space.
I understand the words but not the sentence...can you elaborate please that what did you mean ?

Iron Maiden
05-02-2010, 03:27 PM
"In economics, diminishing returns (also called diminishing marginal returns) refers to how the marginal production of a factor of production starts to progressively decrease as the factor is increased, in contrast to the increase that would otherwise be normally expected. According to this relationship, in a production system with fixed and variable inputs (say factory size and labor), there will be a point beyond which each additional unit of the variable input (i.e., man-hours) yields smaller and smaller increases in outputs, also reducing each worker's mean productivity. Conversely, producing one more unit of output will cost increasingly more (owing to the major amount of variable inputs being used, to little effect)."

gregulate
05-02-2010, 03:30 PM
I believe jCatano was saying that as a tribe adds members, the amount of territory they gain per member should decrease.

As you increase your tribe members, your return(land gained for the tribe) diminishes.

btw you were absolutely correct iron maiden. I was just trying to say it in the context for which it was used in reference to this game.

Jadzia
05-02-2010, 03:53 PM
Thanks for the info to both of you, its more clear now :)
And any method that keeps tribes back from growing too big is fine.

kiwibird
05-02-2010, 04:44 PM
I don't like population caps, at least in terms of stopping players from increasing.

I did hear that tribe size can increase by both using tribe members and totem pole claims. So in a sense I hope the main totem pole only increases the main pole to a limit of 50(ish) members then you need to plant totem poles, how to limit that is more important.

Veldern
05-02-2010, 05:03 PM
So... what happens when one tribe's territory collides with another?

Chile
05-03-2010, 02:46 PM
The Tribe with the better siege weapons gets to expand their tribal area. :)

pid73
05-03-2010, 03:14 PM
tribe size should influence more than just the size of the territory.
for example maximum tax rates, the buildings or facilities you can build, the amount of x you can store and so on.
as the tribe grows beyond a certain size there should be diminishing returns AND even counter-productive effects.
the tribe size would then enter a dynamic balance where advantages/disadvantages balance out and the tribe tries to keep it's size smaller than "too large".
this is a kind of limit, but it is not a hard limit (as "max 50 members") but a soft limit.

no brick walls, but elastic strings....

It would also be cool to use something similar to a player's skills and skill cap.

with every member you get a "tribe point" and the tribe chief can put this point into whatever he wants to, for example
- more tribe territory
- a special facility that gives a bonus on some kind of crafting
- a relax to a limit (e.g. tax rates or storage volume)
- faster roads on tribe territory
- faster tree regrowth
- other boni you can choose from

other values should go automatically negative for every tribe member, so that the balance can occur.

a pvp tribe would be focused on some kinds of boosts, other types of tribes would be focused on other kinds of boosts...

most importantly: no tribe can do everything (soft cap)

kiwibird
05-03-2010, 04:37 PM
pid73 wrote:

tribe size should influence more...example maximum tax ratesHopefully two forms of 'tax' can be collected. One for the actual tribe members, and one for tribe leaders (tribe leaders tax to be paid to another tribe...such as the templates.

...the buildings or facilities you can build...
Depends on the 'bonuses' they give, by rights everyone should have access to the same buildings... more so if they give added security that another tribe has obsoletely no similar building for that.

the amount of x you can store and so on
Hopefully that isn't the only way to store items, and hopefully there are ways to hide resources from looting.

even counter-productive effects
NEVER! Nothing other than needing to maintain the extra facilities you need should be a 'counter-productive effect.

with every member you get a "tribe point" and the tribe chief can put this point into whatever he wants to, for example
- more tribe territory
- a special facility that gives a bonus on some kind of crafting
- a relax to a limit (e.g. tax rates or storage volume)
- faster roads on tribe territory
- faster tree regrowth
- other boni you can choose from
Wont work, unless you get the points from other places too, for example not only just getting the new tribe member, but keeping them. - faster roads on tribe territory, I don't believe that should be granted at least not with tribe points. Leave that to magic or road upgrades.

Kitsume
05-05-2010, 09:05 AM
I thought about this and have an interesting question.

From some of the screenshots and comments on the scaling of the game world, it appears the world is scaled 10 to 1.

Will the 100 meter diameter be based on the visible meters or will it be scaled to the same as the game scale?

IMHO, if it is scaled, a 10 meter diameter circle is pretty small. Even a 100 meter circle isn't that much area when you think about it. A good archer can fire an arrow 400+ meters with a good bow.

Alfred
05-05-2010, 09:47 AM
pid73 wrote:
Are you really sure about what you said?
Why don't you open up Excel and run some numbers?

for example:
20 members raise the diameter to 150m (100m + 50m). That's a radius of 75m, encircling an area of 17671 m^2.

That's exactly what I get with my formula.

Your formula for 20 members is wrong. I punch the number 20 into your formula and get:

pi * (50 + 2,5 * 20)^2

That is a radius of 100m, which means the diameter should be 200m. But 20 members do not give you a diameter of 200m, but 150m.[/quote]
I now realize how my post could have been misunderstood. I did not provide the finished formula to find out the area of a tribe with a certain amout of players, since it was already provided by Bob. I was trying to explain that an aree of a circle is counted with radius, not diameter.

But since somebody pointed out that ?*r^2 = ?*d^2/4, it's a draw. :D

Oakstead
05-05-2010, 11:29 AM
Kitsume wrote:

I thought about this and have an interesting question.

From some of the screenshots and comments on the scaling of the game world, it appears the world is scaled 10 to 1.

Will the 100 meter diameter be based on the visible meters or will it be scaled to the same as the game scale?

IMHO, if it is scaled, a 10 meter diameter circle is pretty small. Even a 100 meter circle isn't that much area when you think about it. A good archer can fire an arrow 400+ meters with a good bow.

Yes, the scale of the Xsyon game world is different from the topographic maps so I wondered about this also. :)

I created a 2 meter high character for a reference and it turns out that the game coordinates that you can see in the screen shots are in meters. With this information I found that the Xsyon game world is 1/4 scale.

Since the game coordinates are in meters I assume the 100 meter start diameter is based on the game coordinates and yes this starting size is not very large, just enough for one ring of small buildings about a small center. I think most tribes will want a starting size of about 200 meters.

Kitsume
05-05-2010, 12:30 PM
One thing that really stands out in scaling is Emerald Bay.

Here is a photo of it in real life:

http://www.laketahoedoug.com/images/emerald-bay-lake-tahoe.jpg

And here is a screen shot a member of my tribe took:

https://sites.google.com/site/randomkitume/home/images/XsyonEmBaysm.jpg

As you can see there is a significant difference. That is why I think the scaling is 10:1. Unfortunately this scaling will rule out some of the more interesting real life places to create a settlement.

We were looking at the Eagle Point State Park area and around Cascade Lake for our home village, but its not an option anymore. I'm not asking for a rescaling of the world, we will manage, but I can say I'm a little disappointed on how drastically it was scaled down.

Edit 10:1 is just a guess, 1/4 or 25:1 could be true too.

Oakstead
05-05-2010, 02:01 PM
That is quite a difference.

One good thing is that they have a lot more rivers and waterfalls!

kiwibird
05-05-2010, 05:42 PM
Don't forget it is to mimic the real world, but also has been changed up a little to be more dev friendly. But I'm sure it has also been created to be very closely linked to the data from which it came from as well.

We don't know if that will always be true... now... when we get to New Zealand... that will be a interesting time period :P

Oakstead
05-05-2010, 06:44 PM
Indeed! A strange looking bird told me New Zealand crashed into California during the last wave of destruction. :ohmy:

Jadzia
05-05-2010, 06:48 PM
Oakstead wrote:

Indeed! A strange looking bird told me New Zealand crashed into California during the last wave of destruction. :ohmy:
Don't listen to strange birds :angry:

kiwibird
05-05-2010, 06:52 PM
More so when its a kiwi bird aye?

Jadzia
05-09-2010, 03:11 PM
I wonder what happens when a player leaves his tribe...will the territory owned by the tribe decrease ? That means that buildings and terraformed places which was built nearby the border may get out of the tribe's territory zone...so no more terraforming there and no more safe zone. And what if a tribe has only 10 members and 1 quit ? They loose their village or they can keep it ? I'm just guessing, would love to hear some official information though :)

Largion
05-09-2010, 03:58 PM
Jadzia wrote:

I wonder what happens when a player leaves his tribe...will the territory owned by the tribe decrease ? That means that buildings and terraformed places which was built nearby the border may get out of the tribe's territory zone...so no more terraforming there and no more safe zone. And what if a tribe has only 10 members and 1 quit ? They loose their village or they can keep it ? I'm just guessing, would love to hear some official information though :)

Haha this would be a fun thing. The Tribes around recruits the members from outher tribes to get access too finished buildings and outher things that might be worth having.

Jadzia
05-09-2010, 04:03 PM
Largion wrote:

Jadzia wrote:

I wonder what happens when a player leaves his tribe...will the territory owned by the tribe decrease ? That means that buildings and terraformed places which was built nearby the border may get out of the tribe's territory zone...so no more terraforming there and no more safe zone. And what if a tribe has only 10 members and 1 quit ? They loose their village or they can keep it ? I'm just guessing, would love to hear some official information though :)

Haha this would be a fun thing. The Tribes around recruits the members from outher tribes to get access too finished buildings and outher things that might be worth having.
Recruiting is an understatement...I bet they would bribe them !

pid73
05-09-2010, 04:21 PM
Jadzia wrote:

I wonder what happens when a player leaves his tribe...will the territory owned by the tribe decrease ? That means that buildings and terraformed places which was built nearby the border may get out of the tribe's territory zone...so no more terraforming there and no more safe zone. And what if a tribe has only 10 members and 1 quit ? They loose their village or they can keep it ? I'm just guessing, would love to hear some official information though :)

I didn't think about that! This needs to be considered.
Tribe land could decrease slowly, so if you get a new tribe member in, let's say 3 days, the land won't decrease.

Jadzia
05-09-2010, 05:26 PM
pid73 wrote:

Jadzia wrote:

I wonder what happens when a player leaves his tribe...will the territory owned by the tribe decrease ? That means that buildings and terraformed places which was built nearby the border may get out of the tribe's territory zone...so no more terraforming there and no more safe zone. And what if a tribe has only 10 members and 1 quit ? They loose their village or they can keep it ? I'm just guessing, would love to hear some official information though :)

I didn't think about that! This needs to be considered.
Tribe land could decrease slowly, so if you get a new tribe member in, let's say 3 days, the land won't decrease.
I guess the devs did consider it, I'd love to know what solution they've found...if they haven't found any yet then its probably up to suggestions. This would be nice to know before the launch, since it can affect the way as the tribes set up their villages.

Oakstead
05-10-2010, 03:06 AM
Jadzia wrote:

I wonder what happens when a player leaves his tribe...will the territory owned by the tribe decrease ? That means that buildings and terraformed places which was built nearby the border may get out of the tribe's territory zone...so no more terraforming there and no more safe zone. And what if a tribe has only 10 members and 1 quit ? They loose their village or they can keep it ? I'm just guessing, would love to hear some official information though :)

These are important questions that will need to be answered soon. If shrinkage does not occur then tribes will "member spam" using temporary members borrowed from friendly tribes to increase the size of their territory.

I think that after the initial 10 that some sort of economic activity measure would be a better way to define territorial size.

Largion
05-10-2010, 07:53 AM
I could rent myself out to diffrent tribes. :blush:

Jadzia
05-10-2010, 08:49 AM
Oakstead wrote:

Jadzia wrote:

I wonder what happens when a player leaves his tribe...will the territory owned by the tribe decrease ? That means that buildings and terraformed places which was built nearby the border may get out of the tribe's territory zone...so no more terraforming there and no more safe zone. And what if a tribe has only 10 members and 1 quit ? They loose their village or they can keep it ? I'm just guessing, would love to hear some official information though :)

These are important questions that will need to be answered soon. If shrinkage does not occur then tribes will "member spam" using temporary members borrowed from friendly tribes to increase the size of their territory.

I think that after the initial 10 that some sort of economic activity measure would be a better way to define territorial size.
Yes, temporary members would make a problem. Perhaps if the tribe gets the bigger area 2 weeks-1 month after the new member joined, and not instantly...

Or the tribe area would decrease when a player leaves the tribe, but the tribe gets the opportunity to buy that land which belonged to them and they have already built on it...the price should be really high to avoid exploits, but still the tribe would have a way to keep their land if it is really important for them.

And if an area gets out of a tribe zone and become a public land again, all terraformation should reset there.

Khenke
05-10-2010, 08:52 AM
If a city can't be attacked at all I think it will be very bad if they are too big. And if they can be attacked, it wont matter if they are too big.

So I think that the protected area (behind walls or something) of a city should be keep't quite small, and the non-protected could be quite big. Just think about an medieval city with walls as defense where the peasants lived outside of safety and that buildings could easy be burned down in an attack. But a smaller number of important buildings was always safe.

If Xsyon had the same system it would balance it self quite good I think. And I would prefer if the area protected only grow with area instead of radius to keep it balanced. Or that the wall cost x (material every week or so in) upkeep per square meter it protect, that way if a tribe want a big city they have to work for it, and it would be equally hard to have a 2x city size with 2x people.

Why an unprotected area with an protected? Because then a tribe/city could loose a LOT but not everything, that mean it will never be wiped out because every member went on a vacation. But I would hate to see cities 100% protected. The resources should be unprotected (or at least less protected).

But it is a balancing act, to easy to attack a city will make small tribes very rare, to hard (or impossible) and we will only have small tribes as there is no need for large ones.

/Khenke

-----------------------------------------------------------
As always it's just my view on it, yours will differ and rightfully so.

Jadzia
05-10-2010, 09:16 AM
@Khenke

Tribe territories will be safe zones during early Prelude, and its not very clear yet how it will work later on.