Removing inactive players from tribe:

[znaiika]

Request to implement automatic system that will remove inactive players from tribe after 60 days.

This will prevent players to log in with their alts, join a tribe, to expand, and then never log in.

[banden]

Wrong forum, post in suggestions.

[Kegan]

I agree there should only be land rewards for active players not for a tribe that has members that have not played in years. maybe ask in the questions to the developers post?

[KeithStone]

auto-removing members is a bad idea imo, they just need to setup a system where the amount of members don't reflect your tribe growth and I'm sure later down the road we will get something more complicated that will work for everyone.

[MrDDT]

Ive asked for this many times. Basing the size of the tribe off "# of players" is a bad idea.

Tribes cant control who is active or not, and having a totem full of inactive players holding huge areas of land is not good.

It should be based on a resource system to see who is active, and also allow small tribes to grow however large they want. You can plan out how large you want to be and how long you can hold it. As Ive said other times, this system would have many benefits. Less greifing, players earning a totem so thinking more on how to place it, helps the economy, better planning, not having to zerg to grow etc.

[fatboy21007]

welp can always adopt wurms way. Ya buy a token with silvers and silvers are bought with RL cash. Now each upgrade will cost ya, upkeep will cost ya, even has a guard to handle the wildlife. I like this system, helps the devs with money, and gives the paying players the land they want. in the end every1 wins. Ofc sub costs would have to drop to make it worth while having, but in the end, the game gains alot of money and people get wat they want. Win-Win. (these silvers are also used to buy items ingame from other players, This type of econ works very well, as long as ya dont take it further then stated.)

[znaiika]

Ive asked for this many times. Basing the size of the tribe off "# of players" is a bad idea.

Tribes cant control who is active or not, and having a totem full of inactive players holding huge areas of land is not good.

It should be based on a resource system to see who is active, and also allow small tribes to grow however large they want. You can plan out how large you want to be and how long you can hold it. As Ive said other times, this system would have many benefits. Less greifing, players earning a totem so thinking more on how to place it, helps the economy, better planning, not having to zerg to grow etc.

I must agree on your point, well said.

[Atlantica]

I agree with Znaiika,

I have seen big tribes that have around 70 % inactive players , and they holding huge land.
The industrial strenght is a example of that.

[banden]

I agree with Znaiika,

I have seen big tribes that have around 70 % inactive players , and they holding huge land.
The industrial strenght is a example of that.

Lol, IS is like the most active tribe around, they might have inactive people inflating their tribeland but I would say they are the least fitting example...

[KeithStone]

Lol, IS is like the most active tribe around, they might have inactive people inflating their tribeland but I would say they are the least fitting example...

I say perfect example