Homesteads, like a plague of locusts

[AegisGuild3]

Its not the homestead size that blocks them its the size of the tribes "reserved" area for future expansion that blocks them

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.

[Escargot]

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.

[bruisie159]

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.

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).

.

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?

[Viper66]

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.. !!

[Escargot]

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.

[Escargot]

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.

[Robhood]

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.

[Redemp]

Easy solution , push the green mist back ... plenty of land.

Done.

[Phayz]

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......

[Aethaeryn]

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.