Jump to content

An Argument For a Small Next Map


6xdestroyer
 Share

Recommended Posts

Hello my dear Lotc'rs,

 

In this essay I will....                                      tell you why a small map is better.

 

How SEO Dubai will help small businesses become better | Azinova ...

 

As many of you know, I am a LoTC boomer, perhaps not as much so as some of you other idiots, but still been here for too long.

 

In order to take a look at how map size effects RP on LoTC, we must first establish a few points on the nature of lotc as a minecraft server:

 

1. LoTC at its peak has around 200 players online, at earlier EST times this is more like 40-70ish.
 

2. LoTC relies on new players to sustain itself. This may seem counterintuitive as when you look in tab you see so many donors and old names, but the only reason many of these players are still interested is because new players give them the ability to do new things.
 

3. If New Players are not brought into a community within their first two hours of LoTC they will almost always quit. People can argue this if they want, but they're wrong if they think otherwise.
 

4. Genuinely good conflict and roleplay is derived from challenges and obstacles that communities must work together to overcome (i.e. needing more land for vassals, border disputes, etc). "ur king insulted mine" may be the current standard, but it is a rather stupid one.

 

Okay, now that we have that outlined, lets move onto why the next map should be smaller:
 

1. CENTRALIZATION: Smaller maps force centralization and increase chances of rp. A map that is 7.5k by 7.5k means that there is a total square mapsize of 56,250,000. Each player, assuming peak time numbers, could have a 530x530 plot. I dont know about you guys, but if I wanted to do walking/traveling rp I'd go play Red Dead 2. This is also why you dont tend to see people on the road.

        1.2 If new players, as wandering souls, see groups RP'ing, they are more likely to want to apply and get involved.
 

2. COMMUNITIES: Smaller maps force players to join together. This is a rather logical connection but I will explain. If there is less room for players to go off and start their own things as well as less room for nations to give to their vassals, groups will be made to combine or cause conflict in their pursuit for a place for themselves (Ill delve more into this under conflict).
        2.2 More people in a smaller number of communities will benefit new players directly. Competition will drive recruiting of new players and encourage retention. Too many times in the previous maps have I seen CT (almost always biased to their nation) bring someone to a nation and just leave them there with the hope they will just find their own way. If communities are more competitive with each other, they will try vastly harder to not only recruit these new players but RETAIN them.

3. CONFLICT: The best RP (at least in my opinion, there are those who enjoy their slice of life rp and thats great) is RP derived from conflict. This conflict does not need to be military oriented, it can be competition between vassals close to each other, or between nations bordering each other. A smaller map, with larger communities and less space, will undoubtedly create tension between vassals and nations as they seek to give their players land. It will force players to prove themselves worthy of deserving land rather than just acting as a way to retain players by giving them worthless manors or towns which sit inactive and often just turn into landscars.

4. (Added) QUALITY: Would you rather a huge map with few details and the same assets copy and pasted, or a smaller map with great detail in every corner and unique and special assets. The number of competent builders on lotc for naturals and terraforming is extremely limited. Of course a huge map with great detail would be cool, but its not feasible considering that builders are unpaid and have IRL commitments.

I will update this as I have more thoughts, but I just wanted to make these points after seeing Carol's post regarding map feedback.

 

Thanks for reading, here is a gold star for you if you got this far...

 

Free Cute Clipart: Gold star clip art images

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

large maps equal nation and vassal bloat plus a bajillion erp manors 

 

im sorry but ur decadent house doesnt contribute to the overall health of the server

 

almaris is god awful and idc if you don't like socializing with people maybe get a new hobby then

 

+1000

Link to post
Share on other sites

What about my immersion of running for 40 minutes to get a single node?

 

though in all seriousness- I think somewhat smaller would be nice but having the size that accommodates for a large number of smaller communities is preferable imo. Personally I don’t find much fun in doing rp in the large communities that base themselves around politics, wars, combat and the like- I do alchemy and with a small number of people and would like to have the space for our own build and land as we did on this map.

Link to post
Share on other sites

but without a large map how will I be able to build my 500x500 city and claim every adjacent tile possible even though it won't ever be used

Link to post
Share on other sites

I can't say anything that hasn't already been said. But yeah, these are some very good points and they should be taken into account come the decision on map size. 

Good work! 

Link to post
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, Jaxothy said:

What about my immersion of running for 40 minutes to get a single node?

The distance between objects/sites and items of rarity should be kept as is.  If we make it easier to access then we’re simply going to continue the issue of every single item being green tag signed.  Honestly,  for next map we should cut node spawns WAYYYY DOWN especially since 99% of players have a unique/rare item because of Almaris’ setup and the monopoly most groups have over more than 1 node.  If there was simply 1-2 nodes then conflict will thrive in those areas.  ‘Destroying’ nodes as seen by ferrymen won’t benefit anyone if there is only 1 to destroy anyhow.
 


 

 

As for the main point brought up in this thread.  I’m all for a smaller nap and bringing rp groups closer together so that they may interact more often.  
 

 

Though,  a smaller player map is the best option here.  I still think outlying lands with restricted access, much like that of the recent dark harbor, Should be set in place. Otherwise we’ll just end up recycling the same terrain and lands we’ve been seeing.  I’d rather new and undisclosed locations being set as ‘unlockable’ through the furthering of the overall story/narrative.  Simply restricting exploration as a whole would be lame.  We may as well prepare for the long haul.  6 months in and we release a new island with caves and event sites.  Then 6 months after that we release another isolated land that is rich with floating islands and other high fantasy fauna.

Link to post
Share on other sites

gib mi rep

 

(alzo real. smaller map plz, and smth to prevent nations from going all out on buying tiles. make them focus on their capitals first, and build communities within their hubs..)

Link to post
Share on other sites

Give me Axios style map. The issue isn't large maps its the fact they never add in fast travel everywhere for said large maps. Axios never felt huge. Every RP place was accessible from the main hubs (with few exceptions, shush). Staff are trolling when they want big maps but also want everyone to have to run the roads to feel immersed. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

I've been arguing that the current map size is good but I never considered doing the axios 3 island things again.

 

@rukio's point is p good

Link to post
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, 6xdestroyer said:


4. (Added) QUALITY: Would you rather a huge map with few details and the same assets copy and pasted, or a smaller map with great detail in every corner and unique and special assets. The number of competent builders on lotc for naturals and terraforming is extremely limited. Of course a huge map with great detail would be cool, but its not feasible considering that builders are unpaid and have IRL commitment.

 

I agree with everything but this. I think a lot of landscapes are "over-engineered" as it is (does every tree need 5 fences 2 slabs and a green carpet on it?) and half the time it adds nothing to the aesthetics while also basically leaving the message "don't touch this. This is handcrafted terrain! It's basically landscarring to cut these trees down and replace them with a farm", which in what's supposed to be a dynamic world is the exact opposite of what you want.

 

A better way of making the map more interesting is, instead of having the World Team (or whoever's replaced them now) focus on minutiae like custom branches, to just have a decent variety of biomes that isn't just "have a gigantic ****-off desert on this corner of the map, a gigantic ****-off grasslands here, a gigantic ****-off mountain range in that corner". Our maps are always designed with the idea that "it's either flat or literally vertical; it's either tundra or there's no snow; it's either a gigantic elven elderwoods or there's no trees", and that's why the maps are boring. Not because the poor, overworked WT team forget to add some brown carpets to a swamp.

Link to post
Share on other sites

 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.



×
×
  • Create New...