Tribe members and size

[Bejaymac]

Yep, did most of the dismantling of the place myself, and now that the terrain is back to normal someone has been painting over the scars to replace much of the junk piles, or at least on my screen it looks like that.

[mmogaddict]

Wolverines is gone.

Oh happy days.

[chojinuk]

i agree, and homesteads should be reduced by 40 meters as well. 10x10 meter is fine for ppl who was not able to build a community in the game. just dont give reasons to flame, loll

right 10x10
just what have you got against homesteaders?

And the rest of the sentance is just nonsence

cant build anything on a 10x10 size pad

Sark

[Mactavendish]

In The Pawnee Tribe, I give new members a plot that is 18x18 meters in size, this allows them to put in 4 8x8 roof sections with walls all around those roofs. This is plenty for any new player to get a feel for building and terraforming.

As new members stick around I can always increase the size of the the plots to 25x25 which is what the homestead is currently.

I do agree that 10x10 is way to small for a new player to feel happy with and I think it could limit a new player ability to experiment or have fun, so I would be totally against a 10x10 size for homesteads

[MrDDT]

Since we are on the topic of size. People are going to want a larger tribe for no other reason to have more area to control/play with.
Having said that, 10x10 is not useful to be creative. 50x50 (current size of a homestead) is a little better, but still people will want better.

The issue I really see is that bigger is only better because of creative reasons. Nothing to do with economy, usefulness, protection, survival, etc.

My issue is why have a larger area tribe other than to be more creative? If you are in a 1 man tribe, you really have massive area to be creative, just simply move your totem around. It costs you nothing.

I see no reason to change the current size of homesteads, smaller or larger.

I do see a reason to change why people WANT a larger area.

[tomduril]

Hi there,

I´ve beeing supporting this game from the start of the release (with supporting I mean monthly subscription).
We had a lot of discussion on the forum about the benefits of subscribing, and my opinion is that putting money in the hands of the dev team (that is what a subscription is for) benefits all players (subscription or free), so the giveback is that the tribe place (or homestead) is save from decay.

As I also am in favor of MrDDT suggestion to remove the # ppl and replace it with # of weekly/monthly resources to keep the size of a homestead/tribe - my addon would be that paying players would reduce the # resources needed.

There is still a lot of possible scenarios with that kind of system - but essentially the goal should be:
-) very active players can sustain a big space
-) the more subscription players a tribe has the easier it is to keep a big space
-) the more inactive (and free) players a tribe has the more difficult it is to keep the space
-) just 1 subscription should not be enough to sustain a totally inactive big tribe (although it could probably be enough for a clan?!?)

Would that be a fair enough proposal ?

[Pwnuts]

if for example one subscriber wouldn't be able to gather enough stuff in 2 weeks to keep the size, your idea means that a tribe with 10 active member would have gather for it 24/7 to be able to pay it? ye thats sounds balanced.

[MrDDT]

Hi there,

I´ve beeing supporting this game from the start of the release (with supporting I mean monthly subscription).
We had a lot of discussion on the forum about the benefits of subscribing, and my opinion is that putting money in the hands of the dev team (that is what a subscription is for) benefits all players (subscription or free), so the giveback is that the tribe place (or homestead) is save from decay.

As I also am in favor of MrDDT suggestion to remove the # ppl and replace it with # of weekly/monthly resources to keep the size of a homestead/tribe - my addon would be that paying players would reduce the # resources needed.

There is still a lot of possible scenarios with that kind of system - but essentially the goal should be:
-) very active players can sustain a big space
-) the more subscription players a tribe has the easier it is to keep a big space
-) the more inactive (and free) players a tribe has the more difficult it is to keep the space
-) just 1 subscription should not be enough to sustain a totally inactive big tribe (although it could probably be enough for a clan?!?)

Would that be a fair enough proposal ?

I think the sub thing is fine. Promotes people to have active subscriptions in their tribes. Also gets people to want to join a tribe a little better.

if for example one subscriber wouldn't be able to gather enough stuff in 2 weeks to keep the size, your idea means that a tribe with 10 active member would have gather for it 24/7 to be able to pay it? ye thats sounds balanced.

1 person gathering for a full max size? No, but if they use trading, crafting, etc of the market I see no reason why 1 person couldnt afford to keep a full max sized.

Having 10 actives gathering for 24/7 I think is to much for any size.
I think max sized should be based off the current number of accounts we have for max 80 paid members = max.
So think maybe 80 people doing 5mins of gathering a day for an avg of say 1 days a week. 5 mins a week, or 7.5 mins of gathering per day 10 day totem timer. What is that like? 125 granite x 80 people? 10000 granite per 10 real days? For a maxed out tribe size.

If people have a problem with each member paying a tax of 125 granite per 10 days, I don't think that is asking much of your tribe members.
That's less than 25mins per real month of gathering.
I think the issue will be people are currently not in the habit of doing it.
Also I think there should be a min for the totem of about 500 granite for 10 days.
Also allow a buffer of current timer (810 game days) so people don't have to worry about tribe decay.

[Zatarus]

The tribe borders should not shrink, as is explained in this thread, that makes sense and is a good argument.

Houses for inactive players, there plots in the tribe, should deteriorate though. And then that 'area' would still be in tribe boundary, but not able to be built on by tribe till area expanded back to fill it up.

Or total area building in should shrink, but only area lost should be the area occupied by the non logging player, so there are fewer houses in the tribe. Such area should not be claimable by someone else, but also should not be build-able on as a protected building by the tribe owner till his total tribe count goes up to fill all areas, or till he accepts a smaller perimeter boundary.

With expanding land, a tribe having much area really is not that much of a problem, however the area inside the boundry should reflect the player count by the easy to remove areas that are no longer being occupied.



I have not yet signed up, but this is an interesting conversation.



However with an ever expanding map, and a current low player count, large area for a single player to build on makes sense.

[Taraniel]

I am a homesteader. I like having my own land to play with and feel the current homestead size is fine. I also have no problem with big tribes. In fact I have no problem with the way things are now. There is plenty of land for everyone. I guess I like to have may cake and eat it too. I would love to see people have the ability to have their own little homestead as well as have a mechanism to join a big tribe as an associate member or something and help out with whatever that big tribe is doing. It would be the best of both worlds. I don't join a big tribe now because I don't want to lose control of my own little plot. However, if Associate memberships to big tribes were allowed, a lot of us homesteaders would align ourselves with bigger tribes too.