Your View: Regions 2.0

[Danny 2232]

@Malimom Might I suggest a further poll following this, unless there is a shift in numbers, to ascertain what players understand / suggest by "partial freebuild"? Whether that means a system of freebuild with capitals, etc regioned; freebuild as above with high population settlements regioned as they develop; or particular areas freebuild with the rest regioned. I can't  help but feel the response is slightly tinged by the ambiguity between the two freebuild options with the first maybe being understood as solely freebuild also? Worth a thought. 

[Aeus 2653]

1 hour ago, Danny said:

@Malimom Might I suggest a further poll following this, unless there is a shift in numbers, to ascertain what players understand / suggest by "partial freebuild"? Whether that means a system of freebuild with capitals, etc regioned; freebuild as above with high population settlements regioned as they develop; or particular areas freebuild with the rest regioned. I can't  help but feel the response is slightly tinged by the ambiguity between the two freebuild options with the first maybe being understood as solely freebuild also? Worth a thought. 

0

 

 

 

I didn't think much of it at first, but yeah I guess it is vague. Partial freebuild would be something like large parts of the map should be free build, others should be regioned, for example the areas furthest away from CT would become wilderness. I noticed now that it can be seen as nation capitals are regioned, everywhere else is not. I see that it really isn't clear and we'll revote on that on the next Your View thread once the team comes up with . Once we go over it and make a plan for 6.0, I'll make a new poll explaining what a partial freebuild system would look like, because whether it's partial or full on freebuild, the majority of the votes went to some sort of system that includes freebuilding. 

[Gone 869]

6 hours ago, Chaw said:

i agree with this but we need at least 2 completely seperate human nations

 

also if we're gonna bundle all the humans together might as well do the same for the elves

I'd love to see just 1 elf city, we've got like... 4 at the moment? Only 1 of them (welves) is actually really active, sometimes 2 (helves & welves).

 

6 hours ago, Malimom said:

How about a nation for each of the human subraces? That would split it into the Caliphate, a heartlander nation and a highlander nation

only issue there is we currently have Haria and its been dead/empty for how long now?

[Danny 2232]

16 hours ago, drfate786 said:

 

The trick is to have all nations centralized and allow communities such as Norland to construct their towns and cities in the wilderness wherever they please at the expense of being under constant threat from the antagonist. If Oren wants to warclaim them, they won't be able to take the land from them or expand into the wilderness/free build areas since the antagonist will actively contest it. Oren should serve as a "sanctuary" for human role players that acts as a stronghold against the antagonist, not a conquering empire that shits on people's roleplay and steamrolls over half the server's active playerbase with their army of screeching twelve year olds. 

0

 

 

I didn't see this post until now but yes, yes, yes. That's exactly the kind of centralisation the server requires with the current size of the playerbase - a clear guidance for new and current players to capital hubs where roleplay is concentrated rather than the cluster**** of places with little rp right now. Keep the capitals regioned and safe havens and make the wilderness a bad place to be with a crazy-ass antagonist doing its job correctly.

 

Wullah - a dynamic and interactive world that actively encourages areas of high roleplay densities whilst still allowing for, yet discouraging, those who seek to play outwith.

 

And then we have a recognition of past errors but also past successes. An acceptance that neither freebuild areas or full regioning have any benefit to the server or are systems that bear any merit at all but also a realisation that just lumping freebuild on the server fails too. Rather, freebuild with regioned capitals, spawn and roads implemented in unison with a series of mechanics and processes to protect our world and to ensure roleplay does not stagnate is the solution that LOTC requires urgently. Let's not screw it up again, viva la freebuild. 

 

10 hours ago, Malimom said:

I didn't think much of it at first, but yeah I guess it is vague. Partial freebuild would be something like large parts of the map should be free build, others should be regioned, for example the areas furthest away from CT would become wilderness. I noticed now that it can be seen as nation capitals are regioned, everywhere else is not. I see that it really isn't clear and we'll revote on that on the next Your View thread once the team comes up with . Once we go over it and make a plan for 6.0, I'll make a new poll explaining what a partial freebuild system would look like, because whether it's partial or full on freebuild, the majority of the votes went to some sort of system that includes freebuilding. 

0

 

 

Would it be possible to have the system of 'controlled freebuild' that I and others are suggesting included in said poll, whereby measures are put into place to centralise roleplay and make wilderness areas difficult to survive in, benefits are granted to central capitals yet freebuild exists in almost all areas? I'm unsure as to what system you intend on proposing but I don't expect it to be that.

[Aelu / Rel (Combustionary) 1540]

Freebuild makes things ugly. Wilderness areas, sure, but not the entire map.

 

Every single new map we go to seems to be dreamed up as a fast-travel free place. Every damn one. Personally, I can't help but think it's a waste of time when, inevitably, they always end up being made. But hey, at least portals will be more useful!

 

As long as active groups are able to get some form of land, should they desire it, the nation designation doesn't need to be particularly easy.

 

Charter System's fine, I suppose. Not great but I can't really think of any improvements.

 

Activity Checks... A good idea, but never executed correctly.

[Thornz 549]

If fast travels are implemented, I think that they should only be in the form of a boat to a dock. 

[Aeus 2653]

We will be going through every comment in a meeting shortly, thank you for your feedback!

[Eurielle 1189]

do fast travels ONLY BETWEEN RACIAL CAPITALS

[ForeverGinger 148]

Fast Travels should only be between large landmasses, not central cities.  They should bu used to cut down on travel time, not eliminate it altogether.  Perhaps we could have major FTs that lead to road hubs;  You take a cart to the area you wish to visit, then walk the rest of the way.  This cuts down on travel time while also leaving room for road RP and banditry.

[argonian 14254]

22 hours ago, Aelu / Rel (Combustionary) said:

Freebuild makes things ugly. Wilderness areas, sure, but not the entire map.

I'd much rather lower quality builds and a changing world than a dollhouse.

 

22 hours ago, Aelu / Rel (Combustionary) said:

Every single new map we go to seems to be dreamed up as a fast-travel free place. Every damn one. Personally, I can't help but think it's a waste of time when, inevitably, they always end up being made. But hey, at least portals will be more useful!

We've only had fast travel on about half our maps.

 

[Zacho 2177]

Moved to The Great Library. It shall be sorted into the appropriate category shortly.

 

If you feel this is a mistake, please contact myself or any FM and we'll restore it.