Realms Update + 10.0 Land Selection

[teeylin 1688]

12 minutes ago, Llir said:

we're all at the pink pony club

[kuebiko 684]

lichtenwald rep

[Eurielle 1189]

53 minutes ago, Kaiser said:

Skjoldenhold (inactive)

Yo it still exists?

[indiana105 5126]

can you guys please make tiles (that can) end on natural features? like mountains, rivers, etc. makes the tile map look like less of a mess and would make nation transitions much more natural

 

also as an NL this map the tile upkeep is miserable for the amount of land you actually hold. either reduce upkeep or increase tile size 😃

[Haseroth 1740]

28 minutes ago, indiana105 said:

can you guys please make tiles (that can) end on natural features? like mountains, rivers, etc. makes the tile map look like less of a mess and would make nation transitions much more natural

 

also as an NL this map the tile upkeep is miserable for the amount of land you actually hold. either reduce upkeep or increase tile size 😃

nah it should be higher ngl. Like at least twice as high. Get nation leaders to tax mfs

[argonian 14254]

1 minute ago, Haseroth said:

nah it should be higher ngl. Like at least twice as high. Get nation leaders to tax mfs

can we PLEASE stop adding money sinks when mina are already deflated to ****

[Haseroth 1740]

1 minute ago, argonian said:

can we PLEASE stop adding money sinks when mina are already deflated to ****

can we please tax james2k 9x the average amount

[Mestvin 947]

2 hours ago, Kaiser said:

Black Sepulchre

[NotEvilAtAll 10906]

1 hour ago, argonian said:

can we PLEASE stop adding money sinks when mina are already deflated to ****

a part of the issue is that at the end of every map the value of minas drops to zero b/c minas won't transfer to the next map but that cool epic sword you crafted with ST materials will.

[Kaiser 2347]

2 hours ago, indiana105 said:

can you guys please make tiles (that can) end on natural features? like mountains, rivers, etc. makes the tile map look like less of a mess and would make nation transitions much more natural

 

also as an NL this map the tile upkeep is miserable for the amount of land you actually hold. either reduce upkeep or increase tile size

 

Tile sizes will be bigger. They'll be more around landmarks and barriers. The map itself is smaller than Aevos. As of this moment we're not planning on changing tile requirements for activity or money, so you will be paying the same but getting more bang for your buck.

 

2 hours ago, argonian said:

can we PLEASE stop adding money sinks when mina are already deflated to ****

 

Minas are not deflated, I am unsure what data you're sourcing. But beyond that, there are no new sinks being implemented anyhow.

[indiana105 5126]

1 hour ago, Kaiser said:

 

Tile sizes will be bigger. They'll be more around landmarks and barriers. The map itself is smaller than Aevos. As of this moment we're not planning on changing tile requirements for activity or money, so you will be paying the same but getting more bang for your buck.

 

 

Minas are not deflated, I am unsure what data you're sourcing. But beyond that, there are no new sinks being implemented anyhow.

 

yeah so long as the tile size is adjusted that's good. was annoying this map to have to pay a gorillion dollars for shit land to connect core tiles/fill gaps in the nation 

[galaxycat151 2]

18 hours ago, Kaiser said:

Suggestion: Bottomless pit on the map

 

 

[JudgeTrudy 610]

I am genuinely curious to hear why the data collected for these brackets has been decided the way it has. According to this announcement, y'all are using information "based on the activity of the four weeks previous to the announcement of the new map." This means that it is using data for nations in the weeks building up to, and during, this bloody "Hyperwar". Obviously, a number of nations have been gobbled up or dissolved as a result of that war, as we've seen with Haense, Petra, and C'nor and may still see with the outcome of this Balian-centric conflict.

 

Now, a number of nations whose data had already been collected are already gone, and those who are left are now going to settle into very different times of idle, day-to-day activity. Would it have been too much of a hassle to wait until after this conflict was settled, and then collect this data for the brackets? What pros or cons are there to continuing with the brackets as they are now, rather than waiting 3-4 more weeks?

 

I do want to reiterate that I am genuinely curious why this kind of decision-making has been made. I basically have no stakes in these brackets, but I did read this and wonder why it would be done this way versus another.

 

As a sidenote, I am very excited to partake in my first map change here!

[Daisy 9731]

5 hours ago, JudgeTrudy said:

I am genuinely curious to hear why the data collected for these brackets has been decided the way it has. According to this announcement, y'all are using information "based on the activity of the four weeks previous to the announcement of the new map." This means that it is using data for nations in the weeks building up to, and during, this bloody "Hyperwar". Obviously, a number of nations have been gobbled up or dissolved as a result of that war, as we've seen with Haense, Petra, and C'nor and may still see with the outcome of this Balian-centric conflict.

 

Now, a number of nations whose data had already been collected are already gone, and those who are left are now going to settle into very different times of idle, day-to-day activity. Would it have been too much of a hassle to wait until after this conflict was settled, and then collect this data for the brackets? What pros or cons are there to continuing with the brackets as they are now, rather than waiting 3-4 more weeks?

 

I do want to reiterate that I am genuinely curious why this kind of decision-making has been made. I basically have no stakes in these brackets, but I did read this and wonder why it would be done this way versus another.

 

As a sidenote, I am very excited to partake in my first map change here!

 

This method was decided months ago as well before the war started, though we did consider this and compared the to data to that from the the previous 3 months as well, and it had little impact if any on the brackets. We do prioritize the recent data as it is the most accurate reflection we have of the current activity of the realms, which has been our basis for land selection for a few maps now.

 

For the nations destroyed, they are out of the picture and won't get land anyway, and if we waited for the dust to settle and see where the numbers shift, that would put us well past the selection timeframe.

[JudgeTrudy 610]

8 minutes ago, Llir said:

 

This method was decided months ago as well before the war started, though we did consider this and compared the to data to that from the the previous 3 months as well, and it had little impact if any on the brackets. We do prioritize the recent data as it is the most accurate reflection we have of the current activity of the realms, which has been our basis for land selection for a few maps now.

 

For the nations destroyed, they are out of the picture and won't get land anyway, and if we waited for the dust to settle and see where the numbers shift, that would put us well past the selection timeframe.

 

That's all super fair, yeah. I had assumed a lot of this upcoming map was moving slower than it seems to be moving. I am glad to know that previous months were compared, though. Oh, and, yes, the nations that got got wasn't a concern - was more interested in seeing how it might go with the leftover states' bracket placement now that they might be swelling a bit. But with things going as they seem to be, I do get not wanting to wait weeks or months for things to settle. Thank you for the reply!