single player tribes

The community seems to be a little bit split on this issue,

Personally i do tend to play fairly alone although im not totally isolated, however i do believe i shou;d still have to right to build a small "base of operations" just like anyone else in a larger tribe. One of the issues seems to be about the amount of land is left unusuable because a small tribe sets up shop.

Well, how about if when a tribe is first started and land is claimed the area that is closed off for use by the tribe (and future expansion potential) is maybe 20% of what it is now. A timer starts and if after say 48 hours the tribe has 5 or more members then the area converts to a full settlement size 100% of what it is now. If after 48 hours it still a small or 1 man tribe then its area is restricted to a smaller "camp" this will stay this way until 5 members have joined. Of course IF within this time another tribe has claimed the nearby space then tough the chance is missed.

Id just like to add that i would have no problem with single player totems not being safe zones if no other totem zones were saFE either but thats a different issue. Its worth remembering though that usuable tribe safe lands is already scaled so as a small or single player tribe is safe in much less space as those in a larger tribe

Im still of the thought that totems should not reserve any of the unused land. By that I mean, your tribe land is as big as the number of members you have allows, and nothing more to it. If there are two tribes close to each other, and they can no longer expand because of each other, then diplomacy, or failing that, war should be the way its done. Doing it this way will add another meaning to PvP, and lets face it, the more reasons we have for PvP, the better PvP will be.

This issue has been discussed and was one of the widly blown up articles. I asure you! there wan't be a problem I was the first person to rant this issue and the answer you seek is already posted on this forum. plz look threw it before open same issue again. I have from a high source. There will be a selection factor for the solo player which will not have same land mass as the tribe does.

nvm, my mistake.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kinslayer

Im still of the thought that totems should not reserve any of the unused land. By that I mean, your tribe land is as big as the number of members you have allows, and nothing more to it. If there are two tribes close to each other, and they can no longer expand because of each other, then diplomacy, or failing that, war should be the way its done. Doing it this way will add another meaning to PvP, and lets face it, the more reasons we have for PvP, the better PvP will be.

---

Yes, this is perhaps a less complicated way of resolving the issue. Ad to be honest i thinbk i agree , land shouldnt be held in reserve in case a tribe expands, it doesnt feel very sandbox to me. It could be up to the tribe to expand or risk someone else claiming the land. So, why not, dont see how this is a problem really. That way a 1 man "tribe" could hold maybe 10*10 metres and increase incrementally with numbers. seems fair to me.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by lp0okmnji9

This issue has been discussed and was one of the widly blown up articles. I asure you! there wan't be a problem I was the first person to rant this issue and the answer you seek is already posted on this forum. plz look threw it before open same issue again. I have from a high source. There will be a selection factor for the solo player which will not have same land mass as the tribe does.

---

yep seen the thread and you're right very similar issues discussed there, could be merged or deleted.

Maybe you could make a "Last of the" tribe ruleset for solo players. Maybe give them some of the advantages of a real tribe.

One player being able to own a chunk of land is fine as long as its camp sized- average suburban home land plot. Being able to own resources for a one man tribe shouldnt be allowed.