Page 11 of 14 FirstFirst ... 910111213 ... LastLast
Results 101 to 110 of 140
  1. #101
    Quote Originally Posted by MrDDT View Post
    I knew there was more to it.




    "2. How long is it going to take before the tribe is considered dead? We will solicit feedback from players before this is implemented, but my thought right now is about 6 months."


    Which FYI is less than 6 months ago.

    Dont you hate it when forums shows your right. Glad I read all the posts intead of what someone shows me once in a while.
    It was a thought. Not a promise as you have said over & over & over & over &.....Ad nauseam. If you acted upon all your miscellaneous thoughts, there would not be enough thorazine available in the world to delute them.

    China

  2. #102
    Quote Originally Posted by MrDDT View Post
    1) You would have to open up new zones every 400 people. I dont see that happening, and I dont even know if I would want that.
    2) Upkeep = gathering. They are linked. (assuming you use that system which is what we are talking about) You are ok with something take 2 years to get but you are not ok with some upkeep? Ok to each's own. Sorry if I dont want to spend 2 years gathering resources for a totem just to have one. The Upkeep system doesnt have to about only 1 resource gathering. It can be many types of resources. Bones, rocks, scav'd items. Whatever. Plus you have trade. You are a master tailor? Trade others for totem resources for your tailored goods. No more "chores". Game doesnt "force" you to gather, with upkeep. It only says if you want X you must do Y. Its already doing this. You do this with training skills. You want to train skills, you must gather resources. You want to craft a basket? You must gather resources, train the skill, or trade for it.
    The key to the upkeep is to allow it to have many different options. Which will allow people to also trade for them too. So if you are a bonecrafter you go out and get bones craft your stuff, trade it to others for the resources you use for upkeep.

    3)You dont have that now. Right now people dont even need an active account to hold a totem, let alone play the game.
    1. Again, you count it like everyone had the max size land. That won't happen.
    2. You wouldn't have to gather for 2 years to just have a totem. It would be required to own the max size land. Rest of this point is only wordtwisting.
    3. We are talking about possible future game methods, aren't we....so no matter which method Jordi chooses for measuring activity, we will always have a first come-first serve totem system. I don't see any problems with that. You were the first at that spot, so its yours.

    We will solicit feedback from players before this is implemented, but my thought right now is about 6 months."
    This is not a promise in any way, isn't it ? "My thought right now is about 6 months." Lol. I wouldn't base anything on that Not to mention that those tribes have been inactive for more than 6 months. And he wants to solicit player feedback...which he is getting right now. Literally everyone (even you) says that 6 months is way too much. Your only argument was that Jordi promised the 6 months AFTER the warning email. Well, he didn't.

  3. #103
    Quote Originally Posted by Jadzia View Post
    1. Again, you count it like everyone had the max size land. That won't happen.
    2. You wouldn't have to gather for 2 years to just have a totem. It would be required to own the max size land. Rest of this point is only wordtwisting.
    3. We are talking about possible future game methods, aren't we....so no matter which method Jordi chooses for measuring activity, we will always have a first come-first serve totem system. I don't see any problems with that. You were the first at that spot, so its yours.


    This is not a promise in any way, isn't it ? "My thought right now is about 6 months." Lol. I wouldn't base anything on that Not to mention that those tribes have been inactive for more than 6 months. And he wants to solicit player feedback...which he is getting right now. Literally everyone (even you) says that 6 months is way too much. Your only argument was that Jordi promised the 6 months AFTER the warning email. Well, he didn't.
    1) Repeating.
    2) Repeating again.
    3) Your way of buy and forget, leaves no room to ever get it back unless they quit, without adding anything to the world. My way of upkeep. They would still have to be active members (not just sub'd but active in gathering or trading or crafting) to keep it.


    Let me break it down for you.

    Promise = "We will"
    Thinking = "thought right now"

    Read the "will" part then maybe you will understand where the promise is.

    Added after 49 minutes:

    Another quote just to nail the head into it.

    " Are there any plans for totem decay in the future? I know it will need to be awhile (many people may come flooding back in after combat, etc). Just curious. Yes, but totems will take a while to decay. I think a minimum of 6 months, but this will be discussed with players before it's implemented. "

    This one is vague not really saying a timeline.

    "
    2- do you have an idea when we will be able to contest abandoned totems? There is no plan to have contested abandoned totems. (If they are abandoned, nobody will be around to defend them!). The plan is to set totems on a decay timer and if nobody from that tribe visits the totem within the time limit (likely a few months), the totem will be removed and all objects remaining will be up for grabs."

  4. #104
    Read the "will" part then maybe you will understand where the promise is.
    Ok. So: "We will solicit feedback from players before this is implemented"
    Oh yeah, this is clearly a promise to give a warning email and AFTER THAT another 6 months of waiting time! No doubt, lol.

    You know, it would have been much more elegant to say 'Ok, my memory tricked me, there was no promise'. The world don't fall apart if you lose a debate or it turns out you were wrong. But nevermind. I'm done arguing about it, everyone who can read can see what is the truth.

  5. #105
    Its pretty clear.
    First warning. Then decay. Glad your done, because its getting old saying the same thing. Posting links over and over again of what was said. Then debating what a promise is.

    In any case. The OP is about removing 1 man totem without him losing his inactive. Clearly some bias there.

    I see no reason why warning emails shouldnt be done right away.

  6. #106
    Busy weekend, but here come the replies Jadzia.

    Quote Originally Posted by Jadzia View Post
    Since we are talking about a system where the size of the tribe area doesn't depend on the number of members, this is not an issue. The land belongs to them as long as there is 1 active (paid) subscription in the tribe.
    Now thats where the problems start, because this will most certainly lead to terribly bloated tribelands, and the possibility of very few people controlling large areas, which is bad. Example time:

    a tribe is established and immediately starts a recruiting frenzy, they get a lot of people and start to expand their territory, they start getting a lot of new land and for awhile things are great, but little by little people start leaving for whatever reason, this happens all the time in other MMOs and its fairly normal. In the end what we get is a homestead sized tribe controlling a very large area. There is nothing that regulates the size of this tribe so they just sit on it, keeping other people from using the land, the only thing they did to earn this land was recruiting a throng of noobs and encouraging them to expand, in the end this is only slightly better than how it is now but its not great.

    Second example:

    Tribe A wants to grief tribe B, so the tribeleader gets himself a second account. This account is then used to plant totems where Tribe B is trying to expand, the mats for the totems on the dummy account is traded over and the landgrab starts to take effect, tribe B is blocked from expanding as long as tribe A is paying the subscription fee, AND! The time it takes for the totems to decay after the account is cancelled, which was what? 3-4 months? Yeah, thats gonna get exploited to hell.

    Land is not a priviledge, it must be earned and maintained!

    Now that is a very very bad attitude toward a player who had to leave for some months but he is so dedicated to play the game that he keeps paying his sub fee even for his inactive months. This would make the company to lose a lot of money and would be insane imo.
    Im a solo homestead player myself and I certainly wouldnt expect all my stuff to be just the way it were when I left it, but anyway if i had to go afk for 2 months then Id care precautions to make sure I didnt lose anything, that would be rather silly of me id think. We can again compared to Eve online, were it is really stupid to leave assets out in space for 2 months and expect that its still there, there is no need to coddle players, Im sure they are intelligent enough to ensure that they dont lose their shit if they go afk, just saying.

    Yes...so we are back to a high and irritating upkeep, which makes the game a chore and no fun....
    Again, land is not a priviledge, it should be earned and maintained. Besides, like I said in larger tribes its a team effort (solo or homestead tribes shouldnt be controlling large areas) infact the effort needed to maintain your land would be considerably less in large tribes if you do it right. Lets say thers one guy making sure that the totems are stocked, thats still just a few hours every week... for just one guy, maintaining an entire tribe!

    Id be willing to accept your version Jadzia, if but ONLY if, at the same time totems can be attacked and destroyed. That would make it fair IMO. If someone else wants land that is not being defended they can attack the tribe and take it from them. The main thing is that totems can be destroyed and/or decay. I suppose you can call it a passive/active maintenance in the form of pvp defense.

  7. #107
    Quote Originally Posted by banden View Post
    Busy weekend, but here come the replies Jadzia.
    Now thats where the problems start, because this will most certainly lead to terribly bloated tribelands, and the possibility of very few people controlling large areas, which is bad. Example time:

    a tribe is established and immediately starts a recruiting frenzy, they get a lot of people and start to expand their territory, they start getting a lot of new land and for awhile things are great, but little by little people start leaving for whatever reason, this happens all the time in other MMOs and its fairly normal. In the end what we get is a homestead sized tribe controlling a very large area. There is nothing that regulates the size of this tribe so they just sit on it, keeping other people from using the land, the only thing they did to earn this land was recruiting a throng of noobs and encouraging them to expand, in the end this is only slightly better than how it is now but its not great.
    This is a valid concern. I posted a suggestion a while back in another thread which I believe solves this problem, while don't force a boring and irritating upkeep on players. It at least gives options to choose from.

    I copy it here.
    Say a totem is upgraded to lvl 5, and at the moment of the upgrade it had 2 active members. As long as it has 2 active members they don't have to pay an upkeep. If one of the members become inactive the upkeep cost appears, accordingly to the totem level.

    The owner has 3 options now:
    - he keeps paying the upkeep
    - he upgrades the totem alone, that way he proves that he can pay for it on his own so the upkeep disappears.
    - he doesn't pay the upkeep because its too much for 1 player, so the totem downgrades automatically till the upkeep cost is accepted by the owner.

    This way we avoid the annoyance of upkeep for active players, but it still helps to avoid huge lands claimed by inactive accounts.
    And a tribe can keep their territory even if a member leaves, but they have to pay an upkeep. Or they can downgrade it if they don't want to pay.

  8. #108
    Your option still has the problem of. Pay for 200m with 1 toon. You keep it forever, as long as 1 person is active they will have a 200m radius totem.
    So still major issues with 200m areas being controlled by alt accounts.
    So an 80 member 200m tribe that currently holds 200m Radius (125664 sq meters)
    Would then be able to hold 200m x 80 (10053096 sq meters) which is about 30% of the current map.
    All for a 1 time fee in game resource fee.

  9. #109
    Quote Originally Posted by MrDDT View Post
    Your option still has the problem of. Pay for 200m with 1 toon. You keep it forever, as long as 1 person is active they will have a 200m radius totem.
    So still major issues with 200m areas being controlled by alt accounts.
    So an 80 member 200m tribe that currently holds 200m Radius (125664 sq meters)
    Would then be able to hold 200m x 80 (10053096 sq meters) which is about 30% of the current map.
    All for a 1 time fee in game resource fee.
    Its not a problem if the one time fee is high enough (for a huge land, it should be cheap for a small one). And while I know you have many accounts, most of the players have 1...so I doubt a tribe would have alts for all of their members.

    Alts can make problems with an upkeep system too anyway. If the upkeep is normal, and doesn't require a huge effort from a big tribe then they can easily afford to keep up more lands by solo alts. If the upkeep is so high that a tribe needs all their efforts to keep up their only totem then it totally kills the fun of the game.

    Would it happen that a player upgrades his solo land to max with materials he got from friends (so he didn't work for it) ? Sure. But thats not a problem imo. Making good relationships is a big part of an MMO. My point is a level playing field for everyone, with the same options for every player, be it a member of a big tribe or a solo player. Both of them should be able to own the largest size of land, although it would be much harder for a solo player to get it. Still, he should have the option if he is willing to pay the price.

  10. #110
    I think upkeep should be something like 10% to 15% of the tribe needs to pitch in each month.

    I agree larger tribes should have to get more resources. Because of how the area system works. Per person you would still have to put in about 10 to 15% of your time to the tribe. I don't think its much to ask that you give 6 mins of a your 1 or so hours of the day of your play time to keeping your totem upkeep.

    You say that people wont use alts? They already use alts. What makes you think they wont later? I dont know any game that doesnt use alts in this way. Which is why they tend to have an upkeep cost to keep the economy working, and people have to make a hard choice. Keep extra land we may not use while paying the upkeep. Or let it go, and save each month on upkeep.
    Your system there is no choice, only one to have alt or not. Many people have alts.

    My point is a level playing field for everyone, with the same options for every player, be it a member of a big tribe or a solo player. Both of them should be able to own the largest size of land, although it would be much harder for a solo player to get it. Still, he should have the option if he is willing to pay the price.
    I couldnt agree more with this. Both systems allow for this, your system makes it so they would never lose it even if they were not active in game (but still have an active account), to allow others to use it. The other system helps econ, helps weed out in-actives. Heck I still have active UO account, tying up my land there. People used to hate it, it was one of the most upsetting things. They made it so instead of having 5 homes you could only have 1, not just 1 per server but 1 per account.

    You can do it your way, and everyone knows what will happen. You have large tribes hording all the lands. They will just be split into many tribes. While homesteaders are left with choice, I can either make a small area that's left (because the resource costs are lower) or quit. They wont be able to get large lands because 2 reasons. 1) Large tribes have 80+ members getting them all, and 2) The resources are so hard to get it will take them months to get the land. (Or like you said years).

    You would be worse off than you are now. Many more 200m totems and mostly in the hands of large tribes.

Posting Permissions

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