Jump to content

[Map Update | Your View] - 9.0


squakhawk
 Share

Recommended Posts

15 hours ago, VonAulus said:

Clearly in over your head lmfao... be ready for everyone to shit on all the work you have done just like you shit on the past World Team. 

 

No one will thank you.

 

ok boomer

Link to post
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, ImCookiie said:

 

ok boomer

He's right though. Every map has been hated on.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Some brain storm

 

1) Hub system at CT isnt really fun in roleplay, some travel roleplays would be more fun, some camp sites at corner for travel roleplays.

In my opinon CT could be a place for dead players- which also would make more sense if it was at sky but those players can never leave CT also could have a part where people can just chill which is seperate from the where dead people are at and where people just chill go afk. I think people do so much for their human characters and they just die never can be played, why not just let me hang around with their dead friends.

-----

2) Each nations should do their own currency and physical shops. Not all people are on at same time because of timezones but for me it doesnt make sense every nation using same currency. and that theres just shops like- example could be like this;

 

Shopkeeper "what can i get for you today?" asking

Costumer "oh just some eggs, milk and if you could put some candy for little one" taking out [nation money]

Shopkeeper gets stuff ready and give her

She pays and leaves thanking

 

İnstead its like just run to a stand get stuff and run back

could still have that style for people who are just in a hurry but i think other way around should happen, maybe they could be hunrgy in their travels and get some meat from shop at north that also could be a hotel maybe they stay in.

-----

3) Vagon style travel or camel travel is more fun then SS style- yes you have to wait but you can still rp on those.

-----

Link to post
Share on other sites

On 11/8/2022 at 1:48 PM, Esterlen said:

I would suggest a combination of:

 

1) Warps directly from an off-map CT directly to nation capitals and settlements (no hubs). In my opinion one of the most grotesque consequences of hubs has been the urbanisation around these areas - many further off areas of the map run completely fallow and are written off as de facto ‘unusable’ while the ‘meta’ for settlement building is being as close as possible to a hub. This makes very little sense in RP, as hubs are generic, uninhabited no man’s land. This used to be the case with the on-map CT as well, which is arguably just as unpleasant for the map. But if the warps were to go directly to RP hubs, it would likely have the effect of centering this ‘congregation’ more organically around actual commercial centres. Moreover, in theory, it helps new players find the RP quicker. 

2) Some sort of mechanic to make these warps one-way only - in terms of a limit on SSing back to the CT and using it as the primary means for instant travel across the map. The king’s delegation should be riding to their location, not mass SSing to the CT to get a warp because it may be more efficient. 

3) Roads should go exclusively between nation capitals, settlements and other towns or villages - no ‘roads to nowhere’ or ‘theme-park’ settlement placements. Settlements in the context of good world-building generally originate on natural trade routes and thoroughfares, which means roads ought to go through them rather than veering off to dead-ends. Ultimately, all settlements should be connected by roads but this doesn’t have to be a highly artificial ring-road in the unfortunate fashion of last map. 

Strongly agree with all these points, but the last one (while I want it) isn't really feasible under current server rules/culture. The idea of a settlement "blocking" a road and thereby limiting footfall to places beyond it is anathema to most people on the server now. Especially the staff, who ask who gave planning permission every time they see so much as a checkpoint on a road.

 

If people got over that though, it'd be brilliant for the server. Settlements naturally occurring where the most footfall is = much more active settlements & noobs finding them much more easily. Noobs struggle to find settlements when they're all awkwardly at the end of turnoffs like rn. It's unrealistic and dumb.

Link to post
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, argonian said:

Strongly agree with all these points, but the last one (while I want it) isn't really feasible under current server rules/culture. The idea of a settlement "blocking" a road and thereby limiting footfall to places beyond it is anathema to most people on the server now. Especially the staff, who ask who gave planning permission every time they see so much as a checkpoint on a road.

 

If people got over that though, it'd be brilliant for the server. Settlements naturally occurring where the most footfall is = much more active settlements & noobs finding them much more easily. Noobs struggle to find settlements when they're all awkwardly at the end of turnoffs like rn. It's unrealistic and dumb.


This is something which I thought about myself - and I think warps to nation capitals and settlements might do a bit to alleviate. 
 

For example, currently, the most ‘natural’ thoroughfares (in terms of those with the most logical footfall) are the roads between hubs and nation capitals. 
 

Under the current system, a nation’s government has no incentive to allow for a town to crop up on that thoroughfare. The risk is likely that this kind of placement would detract from the capital’s activity. As an aside, this also exacerbates the massive phenomenon of city-statism that has plagued us for the last four or so years. I have been playing long enough to remember a time where most nations had over two (in many cases, something like four!) decently active settlements within them. 
 

However, my logic is that if you have the warp directly to these commercial centres from the CT, that risk is eliminated. Every entrant comes straight to the nation capital, so it literally cannot be ‘disadvantaged’ by any other town’s position on the road. From there, the natural thoroughfares (which, on Almaris, run from hub-nation capital) become nation capital-nation capital (or other settlement etcetera).

Link to post
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, Esterlen said:


This is something which I thought about myself - and I think warps to nation capitals and settlements might do a bit to alleviate. 
 

For example, currently, the most ‘natural’ thoroughfares (in terms of those with the most logical footfall) are the roads between hubs and nation capitals. 
 

Under the current system, a nation’s government has no incentive to allow for a town to crop up on that thoroughfare. The risk is likely that this kind of placement would detract from the capital’s activity. As an aside, this also exacerbates the massive phenomenon of city-statism that has plagued us for the last four or so years. I have been playing long enough to remember a time where most nations had over two (in many cases, something like four!) decently active settlements within them. 
 

However, my logic is that if you have the warp directly to these commercial centres from the CT, that risk is eliminated. Every entrant comes straight to the nation capital, so it literally cannot be ‘disadvantaged’ by any other town’s position on the road. From there, the natural thoroughfares (which, on Almaris, run from hub-nation capital) become nation capital-nation capital (or other settlement etcetera).

I think one thing that's important with a system like this is to hand out the fast travels very liberally. We don't want a repeat of something like the Dukes' War where waiting for a fast travel/soulstone pillar strangled the life out of Brelus. You shouldn't ever feel like you're losing a war because the other side has some mechanical advantage for legalistic OOC reasons.

 

I think every nation and (and maybe independent settlement?) should get one, as well as any the capital of any rebellion (for the duration of the war).

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.



×
×
  • Create New...