4.0 Dwarf Capital Planning/ideas ((Ooc))

[Dreek 1633]

The Dwarven lands so far,

 

ooo I see so many potential opportunities with the areas behind the adunian & Dwarf ones.

[xSPULLERx 240]

The Dwarven lands so far,

 

I think the mountains need to be closer to a complete circle.  Plus, the city will be built based upon layers, not area so we really dont need the flat area.  The mountains, in the curve, should come closer perhaps.  and it looks too perfect, the mountains making the circle should become more natural.  Maybe we should do a livestream again this weekend.

 

Edit:  Maybe add two mountains in between the path where the entrance is going to be

[shiftnative 3103]

I think the mountains need to be closer to a complete circle.  Plus, the city will be built based upon layers, not area so we really dont need the flat area.  The mountains, in the curve, should come closer perhaps.  and it looks too perfect, the mountains making the circle should become more natural.  Maybe we should do a livestream again this weekend.

 

Edit:  Maybe add two mountains in between the path where the entrance is going to be

I'll wait until you guys have a collective decision of what you want, unless the king want's something specific - I don't want to keep changing it because I haven't been given a specific outline ;p

[xSPULLERx 240]

I'll wait until you guys have a collective decision of what you want, unless the king want's something specific - I don't want to keep changing it because I haven't been given a specific outline ;p

Well the Idea is VERY similar to Markarth and if you look at the pictures, well that will show you the city style.  It's just that the city isnt flat, its built on the mountain side

[shiftnative 3103]

Well the Idea is VERY similar to Markarth and if you look at the pictures, well that will show you the city style.  It's just that the city isnt flat, its built on the mountain side

The various tiers would be made with voxel after the worldpaint - as for the mountains nearly all the way around it - I don't see any pictures on google of Markarth having that but if that's what the dwarves want, then I can make that for them.

[Tethras 278]

My only issue is that valley next to the road near out city. I fear we'll be tempted to put a settlement there, for example the Adunians. But this would be detrimental to our roleplay because they would be in front of our  city.  Sure the valley is a nice spot for the city. But we should not put a settlement there, due to it taking roleplay from out city. Instead locating any of our nation settlements/Kingdoms further into the valley. So they have to get through our capital to get to them. Bringing more players to uor city, instead of our vassals. So they don't essentially leach roleplay from us.

 

To compare it with our past, it would be like outer and inner Kal'Urguan. People would go to the closer settlement instead of it's main area...

[shiftnative 3103]

The Adunians /could/ be put down here, with a steep path leading down to the coast.

 

[TEEbrown 348]

If it was up to me, we would only be having one city, Adunians or not, and there wouldn't be any other cities or outposts built, just the one city. Just like the good old days...

[Jistuma 1996]

Native can you tell us the actual (extimate) number of blocks between the main road and the area designed for building?

 

And please not the circle of the far distance, because I feel almost no one (including me) has any idea how far that is.

[xSPULLERx 240]

I think, after you answer what Jistuma is questioning, the terrain will do.  I will go around confirming it with everyone, but it looks good to me.

[Tethras 278]

Although this may spark up some serious aggressive responses. I believe this question needs to be ask.  Do we need vassals in 4.0?

Why can't we simply accommodate our city for all races? Vassals are useful sure for maintaining the vast amount of land we've amassed in 3.0 and in war. But 4.0 promises a new start, why should we bother with vassals? They're like parasites, leaching players from us. Sure they offer us military support, but a guild could easily fill that role. We should be taking all those players in, centralizing them into our Capital. Thoughts?

[xSPULLERx 240]

Although this may spark up some serious aggressive responses. I believe this question needs to be ask.  Do we need vassals in 4.0?

Why can't we simply accommodate our city for all races? Vassals are useful sure for maintaining the vast amount of land we've amassed in 3.0 and in war. But 4.0 promises a new start, why should we bother with vassals? They're like parasites, leaching players from us. Sure they offer us military support, but a guild could easily fill that role. We should be taking all those players in, centralizing them into our Capital. Thoughts?

I think one vassel is important, especially for those races that want to live in Urguan though don't want to be in the city of the dwarves.  Plus it helps us for war, one for people, and secondly another fortification. Though I strongly suggest one.

[Zezimus 1523]

I think we'd prefer if people just live in the dwarven city, and only offer them a small area of land when there's no other alternative available. We can't risk making so many settlements and dividing our RP in the next map. If people really want their own town, they should just build one in the wilds perhaps.

[Tethras 278]

Well from that standpoint one settlement is fine. But we need to consider certain factors, such as titles. For example if we have a vassal, I would argue against it being a "Kingdom." It doesn't make sense for a "Kingdom" to be small town in a valley. We won't be a huge nation in 4.0, with the land we're given. Sure we can expand, but it's not like early Anthos where we could region off those areas. 

 

Secondly as I stated earlier, they should be behind our city. Similar to what someone stated in the "Humans 4.0" thread, so that our city is a gateway city. Meaning we get more players going through our capital to get to them. Although this may be a tad harsh on the vassals, it does filter payers. Which means that more players would be likely to stop off at our city. As well as Dwarves more likely to inhabit it, rather than getting sucked into our vassal cities that are closer.

 

Thirdly size, we would have to consider limitations on natural environments and the towns ( Our capital and the vassal city).  We had this problem during Elysium with the expansion of our own city halted by the valley behind being occupied. Not to mention halting our vassals expansion as they dug into our mines. This also happened during Anthos with some settlements, such as Brom'Khra and Kastoria's clashing borders. Also if we make some cool environments we don't want people randomly expanding into that to make their dream house, which doesn't look as good as it did in their heads.

 

Fourthly, trade. If we are going to do a trading system between vassals this time we should enforce it. Although it will most likely not happen due to everyone being self sufficient. Which is fair enough. But we should consider where the resources are to build at least some form of trade. For example maybe a larger forest nearer one city. Not to mention food production. 

 

Fithly, re-organisation. We would have to reconsider out systems to fit in with our new way of doing things in 4.0..

 

 

EDIT: For the actual design of our city, I say we copy Al'Khazar to some degree. With the main things being at the central plaza just behind the gate. Shops closely condensed, but with some decent storage space just up the hill a short walk.  Houses further within the city.

[TEEbrown 348]

Please no vassals. This is just not a good system for our player base. Our city is more than accommodating for other races. (Especially now that it will be mostly above ground.) There really is no reason why we need a vassel. If it is a matter of dwarven pride, the underground part of our city can be restricted to dwarves only or something like that. There is just not enough players to keep a vassal and have constant rp flowing through both cities.