It's getting to be ridiculous, with single homesteads spread all over the map blocking huge zones of land from tribal use.
Printable View
It's getting to be ridiculous, with single homesteads spread all over the map blocking huge zones of land from tribal use.
Exactly. Homesteads are a problem. One homestead can block a tribe for 280m in every direction. I have a couple solutions to this. A. Designate areas for tribe use/ homestead use only. As well as shared areas. B. Allow tribes to overlap a homesteads land C. Dont allow homesteads to be placed for the first few hours of game time. D. Allow totems to be destroyed, even if the people inside are in a safe zone.
You do know that a lot of players are jsut messing with totems instead of reforming their tribes after every wipe etc ?
Let me see :-
A) No , because all you would get is a headache for the devs from people " crying " cause their spot is reserved for a homestead when they wanted ot place a tribe , and vice versa .
Get to the spot first is a simple solution
B) No , Why should Tribe land overlap homesteads ? , if that's allowed , then Homesteads should be able to come in and plant in the middle of your tribal zone and be safe .
C) No , everyone should have the same rights to place at the very start of the game , Everyone paid the same amount to play .
D) Again No , because a tribe / homesteader can NOT be only 24/7 to stop the totem being destroyed .
I agree, there was a homestead about 200m away, and we couldn't place our tribe totem because of it. :(
What I'd like to know is what happens to a Homestead totem once the owner stops playing ?
Is there an inactivity timer ? Or does that totem block everyone for the next 6 months ?
As with all MMO's, there's usually a drop-off in population after the free playtime is over. How will the game rules deal with the inevitable abandoned Homesteads and even tribe totems ?
Homestead only have a radius of 50m. My current homestead sits right on the border of the edge of anothers homestead. As in the minute i leave my land I enter his. Homesteads do not block land up to 280m or 200m for that matter.
Right, it's that hard to form your 5 members on the run .. of course , i forgot that things like " voice comms " don't exist at all .
You do know that you can " click " things on the run , and type in tribe name etc , you don't " have to stand like a cabbage " at the start .......
Oh , and if i feel like joining in i will thanks .
Your basically trying to just give Tribes all the advantages , your idea was not making it fair to all by a long shot .
Oh, and yes that 1 person does have the same rights . Your 5 are " Choosing " to group together , no-one is making them .
Key words are homestead/homestead. Im talking about homestead/tribe. When you plant a tribe totem, you HAVE to have the radius of 250m clear from any other claimed land. Because that is the maximum, and it has to be reserved.
Yes! I do want to give tribes advantages. Want to know why? They have multitudes of more people than any homestead will ever have. They pay more money, as a whole, and usually pay longer than any solo player ever does. There are no NPCs, no pre-made towns, no nothing, and its all up to TRIBES to rebuild this world. So, you entitle yourself with "same rights" but while most tribes are creating cities for people to live in, youre going to be up in the mountains crying that you dont have the land for your cows to roam on.
You imply totems have a mind of their own. Well, the devs decide how the totems behave, and the devs wont change anything when solo players cry that it IS fair and the likes.
And you dont think its selfish that a solo player can claim land in an instant, all alone, and block tribes for such a large area? Pot calling the kettle black...
just harvest the land anyway, whats the worst that can happen? loose a good alignment? oh my!
Wrong, we all pay the same. Just because you have BFFs in game, doesn't mean you pay more. So yes, every player has the same rights as the others. Once again this thought process is very selfish.
No, I don't since tribes can do the same by grouping up creating a tribe, then laying the totem down.
[QUOTE=Tehralph;55738]You imply totems have a mind of their own.QUOTE]
No not at all you were complaining that homesteads block tribes because u have to leave 250 or whatever radius as reserve for your tribe to grow. Well, if thats a problem why dont you campaign on here to remove the reserved land for tribes future use and maybe you should only expand into new land when new members arrive and not have it reserved? It doesnt make sense that you would argue for less rights for homesteads based on what you said.
This isnt true either, the biggest poll on the forums about the subject shows that half the player base plays alone or in small groups
http://www.xsyon.com/forum/showthrea...-going-to-play
Sorry, I'm back. Had a little hiccup.
Yes. But even still that sizeable part of the community wont be used as a spawn location further into the game, they wont have the land to domesticate animals. Theyre just not going to contribute as much to the foundations as the tribes will.
We seriously need to find a solution that doesnt block tribes for such a large area, as many people have already said theyre going to use homesteads to harass Hopi. As of now, they are just too exploitable.
Its not the homestead size that blocks them its the size of the tribes "reserved" area for future expansion that blocks them.
To be honest though i dont think there is a problem with either homesteads or tribes it just seems to me we are finding out the world isnt very big at the moment.
But Xsyon doesnt want land overlapping. Perhaps have the reserved land not be able to overlap other tribes reserved land. And when placing next to a homestead, it basically goes around the boundaries, leaving the safe zone for the homesteader. But after a tribe is down, a homestead cant place within the reserved land.
The problem is that it is MUCH harder for tribes to place totems, giving solo homesteaders a huge advantage...outside and beyond the requirement of a tribe having to gather 5 people first during the initial landrush.
It's very easy to find a space for a solo homestead, and very hard to find a place for any tribe of 5 or more members.
Thus, suggestions like giving tribes first crack at things, or allowing tribe placements to override solo placements have some merit, because the solo homesteader can very easily find another spot, whereas the tribe cannot. If you go by the maxim that everyone pays the same and deserves the same opportunity to select a spot, then 1 person paying and having that huge advantage, vs 5 people paying at being at a huge disadvantage, seems more than a little out of the bounds of "equal".
Again, placing a tribe totem requires there be no tribe or homestead BOUNDRY within 280m (or whatever that max radius is). Placing a homestead totem requires there be no other homestead or tribe BOUNDRY within 25m (or whatever that max radius is).
If you can't understand the difference, or the difficulty it causes, then you're being either dense, or biased.
Why don't they just create one totem type. . .it expands as your tribe does. . if you have one person it stays small. If you get more it gets bigger. If there is no room for you tribe to grow you move somewhere where there is room or start a second "city". I would be more in favour of overlapping where a homesteader is "pressured" off of his land by the fact that the neighboring tribe now overlaps his land and he can be attacked by them there. Failing that have the decay rate of the totem increase the more a tribe grows to overlap it (assuming there is a decay rate). If someone plants a homestead in a place a PvP tribe wants to settle it doesn't make a lot of sense to me for them to be safe there. I know games have to be balanced through mechanics . . I have argued that many times but there most be some way to make it work.
you're stating the obvious really, of course a tribe requires more space to set up as it has space reserved for it for future growth. Thats just a natural drawback (well also a positive) of being in a tribe. You have more space. There are pro's and cons for everything including this debate, a compromise was already reached when homesteads were created to prvent solo players and small groups claiming tribe sized spots. If its difficult to find anywhere to start a tribe then maybe its more space that we need.
As for being biased i think that must also apply to both sides dont you?
If I place a homestead totem next to your large tribe area and planned area ,, so be it .. send me a check for 6 months worth of the game and ill give it up.. !!
First I have to say I am in a tribe, However, Placing a homestead is not as easy as you might think, sure out in the mountains with no access to resources, easy as pie, but if you even want to get within sprinting distance of a junkpile, and be fairly close to a tribe for commerce reasons, it isn't quite so easy.
Once a tribe totem is placed, it reserves the entire area, and you cannot drop a homestead totem anywhere near it, and of course the much needed resources, Sure tribes have more survivors grouped together, but there are still a huge amount who are going it with under 5 in their group, and should have the same " chance" at getting a spot.
5 or under in a group will be a whole lot harder to advance than a larger tribe would, so even if the tribe finds they have to shift 80m from where their sweet spot is, the have the numbers to overcome the displacement, and still thrive.
both sides have their arguments, and both sides have merit, but at the end of the day, everyone has the same rights
Again I am in a tribe, and should we lose our spot to a homesteader, yes it would be unfortunate, but we will move on......
How about letting those who place tribe totems use ALL of the land they're laying claim to in the form of the max radius from the outset, since they're already "paying" for it by having to find a large enough area to accomodate it?
If they're not large enough to police all that area and keep people from "encroaching", well, that's the way it goes. It's the same problem they have now.
No one else is hurt, because it's not land they'd be able to use anyway, since it's already within the tribe's max boundry.
If this was the case, then a 10-15 member tribe (for instance) could find enough playable area within the boundry they already control to be happy, despite having to have placed thier totem in a less than favorable overall position at the outset because of interfering solo homesteads.
Seems like a solution that has the potential to leave everyone happy.
The problem with the current system isn't that the largest tribes are having an issue...because they already have this advantage. It's the medium sized tribes, who have to find a full sized tribe area, but can only use a small part of it, that are getting hammered.
Since I already can guess the objections to the previous suggestion, how about this solution:
Let me choose the spot within the boundry I've already claimed, that I want to start my "growth" from. And let that sub-radius within the larger max tribe radius be the area I can build within, and let it expand as I add members until it fills in the max radius already reserved for my tribe.
As opposed to the current system that says I have to grow from the centerpoint of the already reserved max tribe radius.
Good point. The gripe is, as an example, a small tribe wants to have it's area covering junk and water. A homestead is 140 meters away and the tribe cannot place the totem to cover the junk/water. The tribe moves back far enought to be able to place a totem but no longer does the junk/water fall within their radius. If the tribe grows enough in size over a period of time, it will engulf the junk/water desired, if it remains moderate in size, it cannot claim the junk/water within it's boundries, but no one else can claim that land either.
Allow a tribe to use the land that is reserverd, rather then have it (the land) sit there wasted on the hopes a tribe grows large enough to fill the area already reserved and wasted.
Easy solution , push the green mist back ... plenty of land.
Done.
One thing i dont think i've seen suggested anywhere in these talks...... How about just inviting the person with the homestead to your tribe? I mean unless you just want to socialize with the people already in your tribe and only in your tribe. But then we will hear " I shouldnt be forced to associate with someone to be able to blah blah blah) but thats exactly what your expecting of the solo player.
Just a thought.
I thought about that too, what kept me from posting is the fact that douche bags will say "hey if drop your totem, you can join" then squelch on the deal. Now it falls into the buyer beware for me, but there's nothing the solo can do if getting screwed over. And I myself, if I went solo, would not submit to a heretics demand and would keep the land out of spite. There is nothing you could give me, that you couldn't kill me the minute I submitted and take back.