Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 34
  1. #21
    Xsyon Citizen Gamefreak's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Ontario, Canada
    Posts
    221
    Yeah, we (DHoV) actually figured the tribe distancing was bugged to begin with. I don't think there's been any confirmation on that thought, but it seems to me like it should be double to triple what it is now. A tribe can literally set up around 400 meters from your totem. If not much, much less.

  2. #22

    Cool

    I have had some insight on what mechanics will be and its good whats been discussed for solo and tribes.

    Players will have the option to create a Tribe or a Homestead. Tribes will require 5 (or possibly 10) people and can be placed only the max distance from other tribes. Homesteads can be placed by a single player and will not have an expanding radius.

    This will allow solo players to claim small plots of land close to each other without interfering with larger tribes expanding.

    Tribes will be able to have friend and enemy lists that will include other tribes and individuals, so this will allow friendly non tribe members to take advantage of tribal lands.

    This is a good set up here and will work perfectly for tribal members and solo players.
    Remember to read faq's page on how the alignment on good evil and nuetral works.

    See solo players love the challange. We don't want to have to create char jump in game withen hrs join a tribe or be lost. We are old school mmo gamers who take our time joining clans sorta speaking and we like to talk to people for days months eventually making friends with them and others in the clan before we decide we want to join that clan so we solo play. So people love drama some people don't. Some get along while others don't this is a time consuming process so this is main reason for solo players. Some just like to go alone.

    I beleve what they have planned is more than fair and will work with minimal Griefing if any on land claim issues and such.

  3. #23
    Quote Originally Posted by Gamefreak View Post
    In my opinion, one man tribes are more of a griefing mechanic than a feature. It's begging for people to troll other tribes. Once again, in the future, this may not be much of a problem, but right now it is. If someone wants to troll you, they can just put their totem over nearby resources and make them completely worthless to you. For example, say you see a scrap pile, but you don't want your totem on top of it so you can have more open land to build on. So you put your totem in the field beside it. Then another tribe decides to troll you by putting their totem in the middle of a scrap pile and terraforms the entire thing. Now the resource hub that used to be a scrap pile generating thousands of materials an hour is a virtual desert.

    Both of these have been testing thoroughly by my guild and we have confirmed and bug reported all of them. Assuming this is fixed by the next patch, this still doesn't prevent tribes from setting up right near your land and trolling you in some way, shape or form. .
    Ok well the first half of this is untrue maybe you "tested" it before a patch im not sure but if you place a totem next to a scrap pile but want to be able to use the scrap pile later on thats fine, if that pile is within your potential growth zone nobody can come along and claim it away from you. Your future potential land is reserved and they would get the "too close to another tribe" message so not a problem really, and as for the second point someone just being close to you and trolling is some way shape or form sounds like you just dont want anyone near you, well they will be a set distance away, just over your maximum growth space so again i dont see the problem here.

  4. #24
    Quote Originally Posted by Gamefreak View Post
    Five one person tribes can grief another tribe much more than a one five person tribe. This is simply because the game mechanics allow it. With five one person tribes, you could completely surround someones tribal lands and cut them off to just about any resource hub. You could also make 90% of the area around their tribe land a dead zone for them, because you can't attack anyone in another persons tribal lands, however, they can attack you. This means if you run out of your tribal lands for more than 30-45 seconds, your a dead man.
    .
    Ive heard no evidence of this actually happening and the fact the that its 1 character per account should reduce the risk of this. I dont think we should be condemning all solo players just because something could happen in theory but probably not very often. Maybe we should wait and see first

  5. #25
    Quote Originally Posted by lp0okmnji9 View Post
    I have had some insight on what mechanics will be and its good whats been discussed for solo and tribes.

    Players will have the option to create a Tribe or a Homestead. Tribes will require 5 (or possibly 10) people and can be placed only the max distance from other tribes. Homesteads can be placed by a single player and will not have an expanding radius.

    This will allow solo players to claim small plots of land close to each other without interfering with larger tribes expanding.

    Tribes will be able to have friend and enemy lists that will include other tribes and individuals, so this will allow friendly non tribe members to take advantage of tribal lands.

    This is a good set up here and will work perfectly for tribal members and solo players.
    Remember to read faq's page on how the alignment on good evil and nuetral works.

    See solo players love the challange. We don't want to have to create char jump in game withen hrs join a tribe or be lost. We are old school mmo gamers who take our time joining clans sorta speaking and we like to talk to people for days months eventually making friends with them and others in the clan before we decide we want to join that clan so we solo play. So people love drama some people don't. Some get along while others don't this is a time consuming process so this is main reason for solo players. Some just like to go alone.

    I beleve what they have planned is more than fair and will work with minimal Griefing if any on land claim issues and such.
    Most of this seems like a good idea, i can foresee lots of complaints about the friends list and being able to take advantage of their tribe lands. This will lead to lots of large tribes joining together and creating huge safe zones for their members which of course will anger some of the player base!

  6. #26
    Quote Originally Posted by bruisie159 View Post
    Most of this seems like a good idea, i can foresee lots of complaints about the friends list and being able to take advantage of their tribe lands. This will lead to lots of large tribes joining together and creating huge safe zones for their members which of course will anger some of the player base!
    I actually think that a federation of tribes or individuals would be well within the scope and the meaning of the game. People are rebuilding a destroyed world, do you expect them not to joint their effort for that target?
    I actually believe that "good" tribes will exactly go in that direction, it's what people would do in real life facing the apocalypse, don't you think?

  7. #27
    Lpook: I think thats old information about the homesteads. That was the plan before single player tribes were put in. I could be wrong, Homesteads could still be on the to do list, only Jooky could verify this.

    Single player tribes should stay, but the area designated should be very small. As I typed in the other thread... "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." By doing it this way, the single player tribe would have such a small allocation of land, it would have no impact on larger tribes/towns. I would like to see the "safe zones" turned off to support this too, but then, Ive never been a fan of the "safe tribal area" idea.

    I think theres also some confusion of the mention of 10 members being required to form a "town". I think "towns" will have many more benefits than a tribe area, including ability to put quests in your totem for players, and have your town listed in the spawn areas for new players, just to name a couple. So 1 person can start a tribe, place a totem and build, 10 people in that tribe obviously have larger land, and have the added benefits.

    I also have never been a fan of the "no building outside tribe areas". I would like to see the entire world buildable. People who decide to build in unsafe areas, do so at their own risk, which yes, is a risk, but I know many people that would like to this, and most likely wont play the game if not able to. Simply, knocking down a house should require a lot of work, if you are trying to knock it down with hostility, perhaps 5-10 times the amount of time/work that went into building it should be required. For those players that quit, the house will decay over time, and fall down with no maintenance, to tidy up the landscape. Basically though, people find it appealing to rough it on their own in the bush, in a little shack, hidden among the trees. Any single player thats not into tribes, but very into hunting, would kill for a game that would allow this. I say, make it the players choice, and allow it via mechanics.

  8. #28
    Quote Originally Posted by Raystar View Post
    I actually think that a federation of tribes or individuals would be well within the scope and the meaning of the game. People are rebuilding a destroyed world, do you expect them not to joint their effort for that target?
    I actually believe that "good" tribes will exactly go in that direction, it's what people would do in real life facing the apocalypse, don't you think?
    Yes I agree people would probably form alliances and that should impact on war kills and alignment but the downside for me is the creation of very large safe zones now, if you want real life then that's not realistic safe zones should be ur own tribe space if anything at all

  9. #29
    I'm generally a solo player and I would like to have the ability to choose whether I join a tribe or not, as I am also paying what you are for playing the game. As for the 5 single man tribes cutting off a bigger tribes resources - well like Jadzia said this is griefing and should be reported.

    To prevent problems with single player tribes I would suggest - having the single player homesteads (whatever you want to call it) require an alliance with a tribe - and be located within the vicinity of it - this eliminates the chances of people just popping up tribes/ homesteads all over the place. The only issue I see with this is the future growth problem but I'm sure if its planned properly this would work better.

    -----
    Montezuma

  10. #30
    I have no wish for solo players not to have fun in the world of Xsyon, And at the same time I don't want the solo players to take away from tribes. And with this game being made around tribes. I think when the Dev team has time for it, There should be something other than tribe for the solo players to be able to pick. Call it a homestead like parkezu said. There land footprint would be smaller and could only invite up to 9 other accounts to be apart of the homestead. 10 bebeing the start of tribe size and gives you a much bigger land area to build into. Homestead could give you all the same stuff as a basic tribe would but with a much smaller max land cap. This could let them build closer to tribes and each other for help and trade.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •