Map Size Fixes

[JohnCarver]

How are they different? If a part of the map is inaccessible for settling, it's the same as if it doesn't exist at all. And yeah, sure, you could go hunt there, but is anyone actually going to walk 12 hours into the darkness when walking 1 hour into the darkness is just as good?

This is full of assumptions.

The question is, do you want the ability to explore those deep areas of the darkness, or not?

Also, one of these requires copying bases into the new map size. The other would probably be more harsh in that players still 'have' those bases, but they would find them much less desirable.

[Potjeh]

What's there to explore? Wilderness is wilderness, and a small chance to find interesting formations like that limestika is so not worth a 12 hour hike through monotonous forests.

And you never mentioned that you would actually move the existing bases into the new map limits if you reduced them. The compensation thing sounded like you'd just give the owners a fancy hat and 10$ of store goods. If you're actually going to move the whole bases, then by all means go with that.

[Feone]

What's there to explore? Wilderness is wilderness, and a small chance to find interesting formations like that limestika is so not worth a 12 hour hike through monotonous forests.

And you never mentioned that you would actually move the existing bases into the new map limits if you reduced them. The compensation thing sounded like you'd just give the owners a fancy hat and 10$ of store goods. If you're actually going to move the whole bases, then by all means go with that.

Manually moving bases sounds like a huge headache and would take a lot of time. Not to mention a lot of semi-active players might miss it entirely.

[JohnCarver]

What's there to explore? Wilderness is wilderness, and a small chance to find interesting formations like that limestika is so not worth a 12 hour hike through monotonous forests.

And you never mentioned that you would actually move the existing bases into the new map limits if you reduced them. The compensation thing sounded like you'd just give the owners a fancy hat and 10$ of store goods. If you're actually going to move the whole bases, then by all means go with that.

Players would still lose their 'location', favorite lime pits, probably whatever progress they had in mines, etc. etc. etc.

Its messy, even with a god tool to copy the terrain objects.

Also, if you think I won't put cool stuff in the deepest darkest corners of Salem, you havn't been paying attention to development.

Manually moving bases sounds like a huge headache and would take a lot of time. Not to mention a lot of semi-active players might miss it entirely.

Yes, I agree. And depending on the complexity of the tool, maybe even as much work as the carriages themselves.

Then again, the ability to hunt down criminals with a 2-4 hour investment and otherwise shape the political landscape in an afternoon on the weekend is certainly worth all this brain trauma. I don't believe players are giving credit to all the 'fun' that can be had when making a difference in the world doesn't first involve a 10 hour run.

[Potjeh]

Meh, all those losses sound a lot more acceptable than losing fields.

As for the cool stuff, either it's not something you need, in which case majority of players will not bother with it, or it's something you need, in which case Salem is back to being a walking simulator if these things are a 12 hour hike into the darkness.

[Procne]

Then again, the ability to hunt down criminals with a 2-4 hour investment and otherwise shape the political landscape in an afternoon on the weekend is certainly worth all this brain trauma. I don't believe players are giving credit to all the 'fun' that can be had when making a difference in the world doesn't first involve a 10 hour run.

I may be wrong but I'm afraid Salem doesn't have enough hardcore players willing to do that. And those which are are probably banded together.

[Potjeh]

Putting everyone withing easy reach of each other will just result in the top faction stomping everyone until they quit. The whole bringing criminals to justice pitch is sweet, but history shows that it's not what's gonna happen.

[Lusewing]

The main issue I can see is that you don't want people to feel that taking action against a player who has done them wrong, would simply be a waste of time. But until the raiding patch has come out, and has balanced attacking vs defending, than distance is only a small part of what might deter retaliation.

If the problem is that people can port to Boston from their base, attack the locals and then return to Boston and port back home then surely making it so you cannot teleport while you have a crime debuff (of a certain level) would solve this issue.

I understand this game is not H&H, and I love all the directions it is going, however I only have limited experience in Salem so I am going to base a few thoughts from what I have learned playing that game.

In H&H, justice would often not done by the small players that got hit, but instead by larger players who found the scents and tracked the culprits down for both fun, loot, and to make their area safer. Making the map smaller would indeed cause smaller players to settle in range of the larger groups, but I am not sure how many of them would be benevolent enough to let them live close by. It would certainly be fun and interesting to see but I think there would need to be more incentives (such as local trade or giving the ability for one village to be tithed to another).

[trungdle]

If you tell me that my town is the problem, then offer me to build a structure so that people can visit me and challenge my authority, then why should I build that thing?
I don't know John, you're right but we have no clue.

[Potjeh]

The only way I could see that working is if that structure also replaced homestead for teleporting to Providence.