Page 2 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 31
  1. #11
    Quote Originally Posted by shukes View Post
    I think we will probably find the real tribe space system is being tested now rather than a totem just giving max space even if it has one member.
    When I started this past weekend my tribe of one had a very small lot, hopis tribe by comparision on the same day was huge. I would say more than 4 times the size as my one man tribe zone.

    but again, that was this past weekend

  2. #12
    Pity the Dev's are not randomising the scavenge heaps after the last wipe.Everybody can then start as they should in an unexplored world.

  3. #13
    This is all due to the fact that now the "borders" between tribe space and homestead now has a minimum area.

    Like so:



    Uploaded with ImageShack.us

    I really hope this gets fixed, as he's just coded in the "choking" of larger tribes we didn't want.

    Since homesteads have a minimum size, and don't shrink at all, they can cut into the growth of a larger tribe quite a lot.

  4. #14
    Quote Originally Posted by willbonney View Post
    This is all due to the fact that now the "borders" between tribe space and homestead now has a minimum area.

    Like so:





    Uploaded with ImageShack.us

    I really hope this gets fixed, as he's just coded in the "choking" of larger tribes we didn't want.

    Since homesteads have a minimum size, and don't shrink at all, they can cut into the growth of a larger tribe quite a lot.
    As far as I understand it that chart is inaccurate. A homestead must be placed outside the bounds of the MAXIMUM area of any nearby tribe. Therefore, it is impossible for a homestead placed after a tribe to encroach on that tribe's territory. A more accurate chart would be:



    In this scenario, the only way for a homestead to encroach on a tribe's land is if the homestead is placed first. If thats the case, then it wasn't tribal land yet now was it? Sure homesteaders can eat up good spots but there is nothing unfair about that, especially if we are only allowed to either have a homestead or belong to a tribe.

  5. #15
    You're incorrect sadly. Isn't how it is currently working.

    Right now, one side of my "radius" is 125, other is 72. That's with a 20 man tribe.

    125 side, no one there, 72 side, goes in the directoin of a 1 man homestead.

    Come see and do measurements in game if you want, the evidence is quite clear. Did the algebra/geometry to try to get it right, i'm just not a great artist tbh.

  6. #16
    Quote Originally Posted by willbonney View Post
    You're incorrect sadly. Isn't how it is currently working.

    Right now, one side of my "radius" is 125, other is 72. That's with a 20 man tribe.

    125 side, no one there, 72 side, goes in the directoin of a 1 man homestead.

    Come see and do measurements in game if you want, the evidence is quite clear. Did the algebra/geometry to try to get it right, i'm just not a great artist tbh.
    Ouch well yeah you just described an ellipse. What's interesting about that is if its a true ellipse then a homestead will take up a disproportionate amount of land as compared to the actual size of the homestead. Are you sure the radius of 72 was a true radius, and not just a piece of land cut out from your tribal area (meaning the "radius" would go up as you moved along the circumference of the homestead)? Either way is obviously not ideal, just trying to understand visually.

  7. #17
    Not sure at the moment whether the 1 man tribe near me, was set-up before or after these changes to be honest (as tribe or homestead).

    But yes, the numbers "were" accurate, we've added a few mor to the tribe, remeasuring now.

  8. #18
    Visitor BigCountry's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Location
    Way down deep in a bottle of ale...
    Posts
    414
    So in other words.....large tribes are going to want to make sure they place where no homesteads are located. Or else they risk sacrificing land to the presently place homestead blocking the full radius. I think that is how I am reading this.

  9. #19
    We actually lost a swath of land that was nowhere near any homesteads or 1 man tribes. Looks like we just lost some diameter for whatever reason.

  10. #20
    I read it as griefers being able to build close to a "building" tribe that hasn't yet reached maximum size membership/claim wise (think it's 50, dunno), "choking" off the area of growth of that still growing tribe.

Posting Permissions

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