Tribal Territory Size Answer

[Natedagreat]

lol i love how this thread got turned into a math thread.


On a side note i agree with the fact that it shouldnt be this way. Territory control should decrease in increments as you increase in the population of the tribe.

As it is now its more profitable (more territory control) to have one trible of 50 instead of two tribes of 25. I hope it to be changed so this game is a lot more smaller tribes instead of giant zergs.

[Jadzia]

Farmerbob wrote:

Jadzia wrote:

I wonder if there is a limit for the population of tribes.

I strongly doubt that any tribe large enough to actually control a significant area on the server will be able to maintain cohesiveness. The biggest corporation in EVE that I can recall was EVE University, a training corp, and I do not believe their membership ever exceeded 2000 players, with an active playerbase of 200,000+ Alliances on the other hand got rather larger at times, but they are not single political units.

Sure Xsyon is not EVE, but they are both Sandbox, and share a lot of game dynamics, even if the background for said dynamics is drastically different.

Wow 2000 players would mean a huge tribe and they would cover about 80 km2....I don't know how big is the whole area of Xsyon, but 80 km2 sounds a lot to me.

Btw, (D^2)/4 is equal with R^2.

[pid73]

Natedagreat wrote:

Territory control should decrease in increments as you increase in the population of the tribe.

Yeah, I agree.

[Farmerbob]

Derek wrote:

Ok, I don't mean to get into a pissing contest over something so trivial, but I use that formula every day at work (I'm a structural engineer). Your not reading it correctly A=pi*(D^2)/4=pi*r^2

Yup, my bad, I was misreading it somehow.

I'm glad I relooked before firing back with a comment about engineers using pounds mass in thermodynamics :P

[Farmerbob]

pid73 wrote:

Natedagreat wrote:

Territory control should decrease in increments as you increase in the population of the tribe.

Yeah, I agree.

Up to a certain point I agree, provided that large tribes get non-area benefits. Defensive bonuses, special buildings, etc.

[Natedagreat]

Farmerbob wrote:

pid73 wrote:

Natedagreat wrote:

Territory control should decrease in increments as you increase in the population of the tribe.

Yeah, I agree.

Up to a certain point I agree, provided that large tribes get non-area benefits. Defensive bonuses, special buildings, etc.

what do you mean by "defensive bonuses, special buildings"?

More people to defend = defensive bonuses...you don't need anymore than that.

As for special buildings...I may or may not agree....tbh i don't know enough of how they do that sort of thing in game to base my opinion.

[Jadzia]

Farmerbob wrote:

pid73 wrote:

Natedagreat wrote:

Territory control should decrease in increments as you increase in the population of the tribe.

Yeah, I agree.

Up to a certain point I agree, provided that large tribes get non-area benefits. Defensive bonuses, special buildings, etc.

Why should large tribes get bonuses ? It doesn't add anything to the game experience if a few large tribes rule the whole game. Its much better to give a population limit like 50 or max 100 members.

[Iron Maiden]

ZERRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRGS

[Farmerbob]

Defensive bonuses for large towns make sense, IMHO, but only in conjunction with special buildings. A large town will perhaps have the ability to build and maintain a cut stone curtain wall, which a hamlet almost certainly would not. This would give a defensive bonus, and I would suggest that the ability to create and maintain larger defensive structures (walls, towers, keeps!) be limited based on population.

If you have a couple fairly large towns which don't eat up half the map, it means there's more room out there for people who don't want to be part of a big town.

The geometric progression of the above mentioned method might not ever be a severe game problem. It might well be that the mist would automatically pull back and give us more land based on how much land is claimed by towns (this would be really cool) but until we know how it all _really_ works, any argument is sortof pointless.

[Natedagreat]

Farmerbob wrote:

until we know how it all _really_ works, any argument is sortof pointless.

qft

Without more information anything we theorize about could be completely moot.