Tribe members and size

[Dorsie]

It takes 810 ingame days for a tribe until totem goes away ( no matter how many members ) , thats how it should be.
Now , we have really big tribes , the owner take a look every 800 ingame days , and the tribe is clear for another 810 Days , thats how it should be too
But , all tribemembers not online for a year or even longer still counts as members , and thats NOT how it should be !
There should be a 810 day limit for that too
Yes , i know it hurts , but it's just not fair to take up space for long gone ( and prolly never ever logg in ) people to calculate how big a tribe should be
Stay with the 810 days rule even for members , and not just the owner
members don't logg in , tribe shrinks , it grows when the member comes back , simple as that
Think about it , and don't just flame now
Dorsie

[Pwnuts]

i agree, and homesteads should be reduced by 40 meters as well. 10x10 meter is fine for ppl who was not able to build a community in the game. just dont give reasons to flame, lol

the tribesize counts on the amount of members. since its "a tribe" and not a single player homestead, whats wrong that other tribes mates make sure your stuff will be safe in the time when you are not playing? another point would be, a tribe with for example 50 citzen accs, every player had a own area to build, 10 player play every day, 30 player log in from time to time and 10 player are inactive. so the 10 active player would loose their stuff, even when they log every day, couz the build closer to the border, just because 10 inactive member didnt log for 810 days. that would cause dramas and seriously our dev have plenty of stuff to do than deal with more issues.

its fine as it is, since 4 years. saw a lot of ppl who was complaining and which was jelous, but well.. ppl come and ppl go in this game.

its not that there is not enough space to build up tribes, and old tribes block the whole area, "imo" there are just ppl to lazy to do stuff by their own. so sure lets shrink the big tribes that lazy ppl can loot their stuff.. lol

[Pwnuts]

lol.

well there are people playing for a long time, and even if stuff of players show 2000+ days. they joined a tribe to store their stuff and if they come back or not is a diffrent topic, but when they will log again the stuff is still there. a tribeleader is after about 60ingame days able to move carts, if the carts really bother, even out of the tribal land. so they dont hurt. if the leader is not active but members who feel bothered by carts, they can still ask a guide to move those.

cant let got? not sure what you mean about that, should they kick inactive member? you have to know, every tribe which is build up and have some members, also have a own history. i can tell that i know, and remember the people which are in my tribe and which are not playing currently , or even anymore. and while we played together we build friendships. so i wouldn't kick them, i also would like to see them still in the tribe if they come back anytime. you prolly have seen a lot of returning people in the few month you are here now, and if you start another game anytime and may come back to xsyon you would like to see your stuff and your tribe ist still there i guess.

its not the fault of tribeleaders that the population is that low. most ppl dont find a way to thi game. there is almost no promotion and expecially here in europe no information that xsyon even exist. tribe leaders who log in to avoid decay still hang on their tribe and prolly a whole bunch of them will play active once steam released and ppl show up.

[MrDDT]

Dorsie, I think you are a little confused on how the timer works.

First off, its not how often the tribe leader logs in that resets the time.

If you have a paid account subscrition on ANY member in the tribe, the timer will be set to 0. Even if they never log on.
If any member who has a paid account (now any person logging in that tribe because everyone is paid to play) resets the timer.

About the idea of making it smaller based on how often people log in, is a horrid idea. Why? Because of tribal planning.
Lets say you have a 100 meter radius tribe. You build the walls at 80 meters around your tribe, takes you weeks or even months of work and you build your tribe. Over those months, you slowly lose a few players. Now your area is 75 meter radius because of your idea. So now they have to rebuild ALL the walls around the tribe because the old ones are unprotected.

Xsyon needs to move off the # of players in a tribe rule and goto a resource cost system. This way if you are not playing, you are not gaining resources. If you are holding a large tribe that costs a lot of resources with no one playing, you will need to either lower the size or get active people to keep up with the resource cost.
If you are not playing, you will end up losing all your area. This resource cost will need to be thought out on balancing so people that do only play a couple of hours a week can keep up with the costs of a homestead and the per person cost value of larger tribes.
This system would also increase the value of active people in game along with the value of resources in game. Even tribes like mine have a limited number of resources and could not keep my tribe size active forever without playing. I would likely end up selling off high skill items for basic resources for upkeep, encouraging economy.

[Mactavendish]

Dorsie, Im not sure what you really think you will accomplish with your idea, but I can tell you right now that it would drive away most of the vets playing. ( maybe that is what you want? )

Like ddt said, your idea only forces people to rebuild all the time, and to me would make the idea of building in the first place pointless.

Already abandoned tribes decay and the land is recovered back to its original shape. You can loot anything on that abandoned tribe after the various timers expire, and there is so much land available now to start and build up a tribe that I really can't see why you even posted this.

What is it you REALLY want?

To me this sounds like you know of a prime spot ( at least in your viewpoint ) to build a tribe on, but alas, its occupied by a long dormant tribe. I know it hurts that you didn't get first shot at that spot, but that's the nature of online gaming.

Also, how is it fair to these tribe leaders to have literally YEARS of work shrink or disappear just to satisfy people that have not played as long?

Some of us have actually been playing all along and want to keep our ingame investement of time and effort and thankfully Our kind dev is showing loyalty to his devoted players.

I am not flaming you, but I do think this is probably one of the worst ideas I have ever heard.

[romka2x]

..........

[MrDDT]

Tribe leader should be exactly what it says - a leader. Not some solo guy who is going to log in to save the ghost belongings. Focus should be on keeping community alive, not clinging to 3-year old architecture. A leader that is active and helps new people and works on constantly building tribe size and xsyon community in general, will never have this problem - it's the one that doesn't do it that will. Do what a leader does - rally people around you. Not do - not get. Simple as that. One member quits - get another one or suffer the loss of land. 810 days. Fair.

Which kind of leader are you?

Coran the problem is that even active leaders will find it hard keeping 80+ members active in their tribe when the game as a whole barely has that many people playing.
You are new here, so understand that some of us have been working on their tribe area for 5 years. With some breaks in there of play but mostly active daily or at least 3+ times a week. You can see which tribes these are, however, there are some tribes that never log in and play anymore that do fall under abuse (in my opinion) of the system. I do it now even. I log in for 5mins every 30 days or less and keep my tribe from decaying in hope the game gets better. These tribes like mine is now should be punished for doing this, active tribes should be rewarded.
A system based on the # of paid accounts is not a good idea, and never has been. I've been saying this for a long time.

[Pwnuts]

the same way as wolferines did , and was there any tears ? no all was happy when it was gone
and not a single member showed up and complained , why ? , because they are gone , period

i complain. when wolvierines was still there, nobody saw the mess of the junkpile couz they putted arc on it.

[Pwnuts]

well i told my opinion and i dont see a "need" to change the current system. the maps in the mist are prepared and afaik ready to open once we get a high population on the server. "just imo" there is no issue of blocked land, no issue of ghosttribes since still people can see what is possible and see the effort of crazy archetectures and individual ideas. no issue about a member which is still in the tribe, if they comes back they can leave and build up a own homestead, if they wont log anymore, they stay in a tribe where they was part of and helped to build it up. and as long people pay for their accounds, even if they do not log, they pay not just for the time they could play, they pay fot the security of their effort to store items and put buildings in the game.

i think, if someone is willed to pay, he is willed to come back anytime. if he stops paying he dont care anymore and the stuff will go over time. so right now everything works with a perfect solution. i dont see a need in this disscussion eighter, i told my opinion twice now and i'm out of this topic.

[MrDDT]

Pwnuts, answer me this.

You don't see it as a problem that the current system promotes inviting people just to grow your size and not even care if they are active after that, wouldn't it be better to have a system that promotes active players and people to play actively?

[wastelandstoic]

Not Pwnuts but here's an answer. In theory, yes.

But, one issue that should be considered, and I think it has, is the people /tribes that have been with the game since it's beginning and playing under the existing system have managed to build up there tribes to max/ or close to max size. Do you change that system and risk alienating them? When is the right time to implement a change along these lines?

I think Xsyon has decided to wait on this issue until the game has evolved a bit more and there is a better balance of old -vs- new players to hash out a good compromise that works for a majority of players. I agree that for now that's probably the best way to go on this particular issue.

[MrDDT]

Problem with waiting is that you will have a burst of new people and if understanding tribes have now is recruit with no care if they stay in the game or not will be bad.
I think it's much better to promote/reward ACTIVE players and tribes. Xsyon needs to support people working together, and to do this you reward them. Currently we have only 1 reward for it, which is the tribe buff. Which IMO is minor buff until you get in high end crafting. Also a lot of people don't understand the buff.

Tribes that have been with the game for a long time will not be punished at all IF they are active. Heck any tribe that has been with the game for a while likely has a ton of saved resources anyways, on top of that they should be able to get basic resources for traded items that old tribes can make easy while new players cant make them due to lack of skills at the start. Like carts, and weapons.

[Mactavendish]

I fully agree with Wastelandstoic.

Remember that these dormant tribes do represent the drive and passion of people that played before. Perhaps some here are thinking that it will cause new players to somehow view it as a negative that so many used to play in that tribe but now they don't. And perhaps that is a possibility for a few. On the other hand, they could also perceive it as this game drew THAT many people and they did all that? COOL!

Wastelandstoic has a very good point that to make such a sweeping change at this point will drive off the very ones that have stuck it out and spent all those years building their tribe up. For new tribe of today it is very hard to recruit and keep members since the game has such a low pop and still needs a few things to motivate them to stay. But to remove the monuments to the game that these, ( even dormant ) tribes represent is surly NOT the way to go about it.

I can remember the days of beta and release and how the land became potmarked with homesteads all over. At least now we have the system that they decay and eventually disappear. Once they grew past the point of one person tribes the dynamic changed. Now it was important for Jordi to retain these players, and even if they left for a break to preserve their tribes to provide incentive to come back. This has obviously worked as intended all along due to all the ones that have have come back or in and out over the last 3-5 years.

I'm All for a system that requires maintenance to keep a tribe at a certain size. its even on the totems atm and could be used. But there must be a reason he has not. Make any suggestions you care to, but I'm not going to hold my breath thinking any particular one will be implemented. At the moment we need to get past steam release, groom the game further to retain those that start new, and give is all more reason to do what we do here... THEN, and only then will this idea you present Dorsie have a chance at working to benefit the game. Until then I believe it would only bring further reductions in the playerbase.

One more additional thing to mention, ddt is right about the old tribes, I would have no prob at all keeping Pawnee up and running and resources are no issue at all.

[MrDDT]

Mac the last reason I heard he didnt do it, was simply because of a few people told him they didnt like it and would quit. From what I understand.

I think this system is very important not just to get active people some reward and option to grow a tribe without inviting everyone and their brother into the tribe, but also helping economy and new players.

Think of all the new players that will be starting out and the basic resources that will be wanted. Vets wont want basic resources much as they already have most skills/stats. New players currently want basic resources for skills. If this system were put into place everyone would want basic resources even more, and I think you would see that trade would be a lot more active.

Where I see the most abuse is where 1 person with a lot of resources could claim large areas of the map. However, this wouldnt last long as the cost of resources would be extreme. Also where balancing would need to be looked at.

[Mactavendish]

I am not really disagreeing with you except on the timing.

We need a population before any of these ideas have meaning. At the current pop and state of the servers, other things really need to happen first before ever thinking about tribe decay or maintenance resources.

For instance...

On the peace server, the only reasons to do anything are to build up a tribe and level your skills. No real need to trade, no real need to protect anything or to maintain anything. These issues need to be addressed first in my opinion.

Give us roving bands of revs looting bins or breaking down walls to get at bins. Or have them spawn near any built up areas instead of old tribes that have been abandoned. Then you would have reason to build walls, gain members and trade with others.

On the war server take away no combat on tribal lands and make it where the only protection is the walls you build. Also, allow other tribes to damage wall pieces and eventually break into any tribe. I mean its the pvp players paradise right? Make it a free for all since its a sandbox and pay no attention to complaints, seeing as its full loot 24/7 the only protection you get is what YOU make and maintain. Trade wont matter there really and that's fine since it's survive or don't.

Anyway you get the idea. It's all well and good to discuss these ideas but now ain't the time to put them in.

[wastelandstoic]

Problem with waiting is that you will have a burst of new people and if understanding tribes have now is recruit with no care if they stay in the game or not will be bad.

I'm not sure that’s accurate. Anyone that has been playing for a while should know that a change to the tribe maintenance system will be forthcoming at some point the particulars of which are yet to be finalized.

New players (few or many) should take some time to learn about the game, its history and mechanics, from several sources the best being long time players. While it is fully playable in many aspects, it does say Xsyon Prelude, not Xsyon. A work still in progress that anyone coming to the game can have a degree of input into the final results but, there should be no dictators here.

I personally am not opposed to a resource system. I do think it should be well thought out and take all options/considerations into account. I'll echo Mac : I am not really disagreeing with you except on the timing.

[Willowhawk]

I think Dorsi that the problem you are seeing, is not huge empty tribes, but a low player population. Take my tribe for instance. We have maintained active members for over 3 1/2 years and have been active members of the global community be it a small community.

Granted much of the time we have been down to a skeletal crew but usually no less than 3 or 4 active, and as much as 15 at any time. This is not from lack of effort on our part. When the FTP came out we worked hard at recruiting only to have most players waste hours (or days) of our time teaching them the ropes only to have them disappear without a word. Eventually we stopped actively recruiting and relied on serious players to come to us.

Now that the FTP is gone we are going to start recruiting again because we have learned that people who buy the game tend to take it more serious and stay much longer. In fact we should be publishing our next recruitment page any day (still finishing up the details) ;)

As for the resource option, I too am not apposed to this idea however like Wastelandstoic stated, the timing needs to be right. If the population merits it, then I'm in. But with the low population it would only punish those of us who have supported this game for the past 4 years.

[znaiika]

DDT, in #5 post you actually have a good point to provoke economy, no chokes, no restrictions, this I do agree with you.

[mmogaddict]

Does anyone really care about the tribe size issue OTHER than about how to remove the bombsite that is the Wolverines base?

Especially in light that Jordi has said that he will be pushing the borders back and increasing the size of the map by around x9 what it currently is?

How is the full version planned to differ from the Early Access version?
“Although Xsyon is planned to evolve indefinitely, the first full release of the game, tentatively titled Xsyon Apocalypse will launch when several criteria are met:

- Pets and mounts, currently in development, are fully implemented.
- Ranged combat is released.
- Enhanced building functions are implemented.
- Systems are improved and balanced based on player feedback.
- Achievements are implemented.
- The expanded landscape (9 times the current world size) is ready for public release.”

Maybe we could avoid having to change the game around by just removing FROM THE TRIBE SIZE CALCULATION all account's that haven't logged in for over .. let's say 4 years. (I think that would reduce Wolverines enough yet shouldn't affect any other active/activish tribes).

[MrDDT]

Wolverines is gone.

[Bejaymac]

Yep, did most of the dismantling of the place myself, and now that the terrain is back to normal someone has been painting over the scars to replace much of the junk piles, or at least on my screen it looks like that.

[mmogaddict]

Wolverines is gone.

Oh happy days.

[chojinuk]

i agree, and homesteads should be reduced by 40 meters as well. 10x10 meter is fine for ppl who was not able to build a community in the game. just dont give reasons to flame, loll

right 10x10
just what have you got against homesteaders?

And the rest of the sentance is just nonsence

cant build anything on a 10x10 size pad

Sark

[Mactavendish]

In The Pawnee Tribe, I give new members a plot that is 18x18 meters in size, this allows them to put in 4 8x8 roof sections with walls all around those roofs. This is plenty for any new player to get a feel for building and terraforming.

As new members stick around I can always increase the size of the the plots to 25x25 which is what the homestead is currently.

I do agree that 10x10 is way to small for a new player to feel happy with and I think it could limit a new player ability to experiment or have fun, so I would be totally against a 10x10 size for homesteads

[MrDDT]

Since we are on the topic of size. People are going to want a larger tribe for no other reason to have more area to control/play with.
Having said that, 10x10 is not useful to be creative. 50x50 (current size of a homestead) is a little better, but still people will want better.

The issue I really see is that bigger is only better because of creative reasons. Nothing to do with economy, usefulness, protection, survival, etc.

My issue is why have a larger area tribe other than to be more creative? If you are in a 1 man tribe, you really have massive area to be creative, just simply move your totem around. It costs you nothing.

I see no reason to change the current size of homesteads, smaller or larger.

I do see a reason to change why people WANT a larger area.

[tomduril]

Hi there,

I´ve beeing supporting this game from the start of the release (with supporting I mean monthly subscription).
We had a lot of discussion on the forum about the benefits of subscribing, and my opinion is that putting money in the hands of the dev team (that is what a subscription is for) benefits all players (subscription or free), so the giveback is that the tribe place (or homestead) is save from decay.

As I also am in favor of MrDDT suggestion to remove the # ppl and replace it with # of weekly/monthly resources to keep the size of a homestead/tribe - my addon would be that paying players would reduce the # resources needed.

There is still a lot of possible scenarios with that kind of system - but essentially the goal should be:
-) very active players can sustain a big space
-) the more subscription players a tribe has the easier it is to keep a big space
-) the more inactive (and free) players a tribe has the more difficult it is to keep the space
-) just 1 subscription should not be enough to sustain a totally inactive big tribe (although it could probably be enough for a clan?!?)

Would that be a fair enough proposal ?

[Pwnuts]

if for example one subscriber wouldn't be able to gather enough stuff in 2 weeks to keep the size, your idea means that a tribe with 10 active member would have gather for it 24/7 to be able to pay it? ye thats sounds balanced.

[MrDDT]

Hi there,

I´ve beeing supporting this game from the start of the release (with supporting I mean monthly subscription).
We had a lot of discussion on the forum about the benefits of subscribing, and my opinion is that putting money in the hands of the dev team (that is what a subscription is for) benefits all players (subscription or free), so the giveback is that the tribe place (or homestead) is save from decay.

As I also am in favor of MrDDT suggestion to remove the # ppl and replace it with # of weekly/monthly resources to keep the size of a homestead/tribe - my addon would be that paying players would reduce the # resources needed.

There is still a lot of possible scenarios with that kind of system - but essentially the goal should be:
-) very active players can sustain a big space
-) the more subscription players a tribe has the easier it is to keep a big space
-) the more inactive (and free) players a tribe has the more difficult it is to keep the space
-) just 1 subscription should not be enough to sustain a totally inactive big tribe (although it could probably be enough for a clan?!?)

Would that be a fair enough proposal ?

I think the sub thing is fine. Promotes people to have active subscriptions in their tribes. Also gets people to want to join a tribe a little better.




if for example one subscriber wouldn't be able to gather enough stuff in 2 weeks to keep the size, your idea means that a tribe with 10 active member would have gather for it 24/7 to be able to pay it? ye thats sounds balanced.


1 person gathering for a full max size? No, but if they use trading, crafting, etc of the market I see no reason why 1 person couldnt afford to keep a full max sized.

Having 10 actives gathering for 24/7 I think is to much for any size.
I think max sized should be based off the current number of accounts we have for max 80 paid members = max.
So think maybe 80 people doing 5mins of gathering a day for an avg of say 1 days a week. 5 mins a week, or 7.5 mins of gathering per day 10 day totem timer. What is that like? 125 granite x 80 people? 10000 granite per 10 real days? For a maxed out tribe size.

If people have a problem with each member paying a tax of 125 granite per 10 days, I don't think that is asking much of your tribe members.
That's less than 25mins per real month of gathering.
I think the issue will be people are currently not in the habit of doing it.
Also I think there should be a min for the totem of about 500 granite for 10 days.
Also allow a buffer of current timer (810 game days) so people don't have to worry about tribe decay.

[Zatarus]

The tribe borders should not shrink, as is explained in this thread, that makes sense and is a good argument.

Houses for inactive players, there plots in the tribe, should deteriorate though. And then that 'area' would still be in tribe boundary, but not able to be built on by tribe till area expanded back to fill it up.

Or total area building in should shrink, but only area lost should be the area occupied by the non logging player, so there are fewer houses in the tribe. Such area should not be claimable by someone else, but also should not be build-able on as a protected building by the tribe owner till his total tribe count goes up to fill all areas, or till he accepts a smaller perimeter boundary.

With expanding land, a tribe having much area really is not that much of a problem, however the area inside the boundry should reflect the player count by the easy to remove areas that are no longer being occupied.



I have not yet signed up, but this is an interesting conversation.



However with an ever expanding map, and a current low player count, large area for a single player to build on makes sense.

[Taraniel]

I am a homesteader. I like having my own land to play with and feel the current homestead size is fine. I also have no problem with big tribes. In fact I have no problem with the way things are now. There is plenty of land for everyone. I guess I like to have may cake and eat it too. I would love to see people have the ability to have their own little homestead as well as have a mechanism to join a big tribe as an associate member or something and help out with whatever that big tribe is doing. It would be the best of both worlds. I don't join a big tribe now because I don't want to lose control of my own little plot. However, if Associate memberships to big tribes were allowed, a lot of us homesteaders would align ourselves with bigger tribes too.

[MrDDT]

I agree Taraniel, many systems would be in place that would work wonders for a tribe / totem system change or addon.

[Xsyon]

I would love to see people have the ability to have their own little homestead as well as have a mechanism to join a big tribe as an associate member or something and help out with whatever that big tribe is doing. It would be the best of both worlds. I don't join a big tribe now because I don't want to lose control of my own little plot. However, if Associate memberships to big tribes were allowed, a lot of us homesteaders would align ourselves with bigger tribes too.

Sounds like you've been spying on me. :p This has already been coded and will be tested after the building and creature updates are patched out.

[Whorlok]

Sounds like you've been spying on me. :p This has already been coded and will be tested after the building and creature updates are patched out.
Nice...can we also have then if we dying a second respawn point if we join a second tribe. (those would also open player driven content without limit)

[Pwnuts]

you would need to be able to set a respawn point/change it manualy. But this option could be abused as well. like training critters afk with a temp totem, farming player (pve) without any need of travle.

[Whorlok]

you would need to be able to set a respawn point/change it manualy. But this option could be abused as well. like training critters afk with a temp totem, farming player (pve) without any need of travle.
ok...or a mobile flag ONLY for the Gamemaster! If player would create a event they can contact a gamemaster.he can set this
"flag "mobile respawn point (only for Events) and player can bind to this point.
those thing is not bad and we need not for each player ideas a gamemaster(they have other work)
But i think Jordi have planned "CAPTURE THE FLAG" Event! there are three flags..and player must respawn on her flag if they dy.If

[Pwnuts]

well, dont die ;)