Map Size Fixes

[ImpalerWrG]

I really don't want to run into someone every time I go bear hunting.

In Soviet Salem, John Carver hunts you! (specifically your Tears)

[trungdle]

How many players do you think a server should support once the game is advertised? Yes the map might be too large now for current player base - but put 10k people on it - is it still too large then?

Yes. The server right now runs with 700 Average Daily users.

Per our Density formula that we 'want' from the map size. That would mean we would be happy with this map size so long as it had. 57,600 Daily users on average. It would still feel 'empty' but at least you would hit another base ever 10-15 minutes of running which is what we consider ideal.

So hopefully this gives a good perspective of the 'issue' for us. Its not that the map would be fix'd if we had double the population or 10x the population. The map size is quite literally 100x larger than we would like for it to be from a density standpoint.

The only reason we are talking about reducing the map sizes by only 70-80% is so that we can retain the 2-3 hour travel time from point A to Point B. If it were not for trying to retain a 'several hour' journey to the end of the map we would be debating between a 85-95% reduction in map size.

For those who remember the previous servers, we found their maps to be much more reasonable in size if not still a bit too large. This map is a good 500% larger than those.

500%. OK, if only I can change my vote. I do feel like reducing the map ((FOR NOW) is good enough. If you promise to expand it later
I always like big thing. Y'know, Texans.
How about us doing like they used to do? Write an Act that prohibits people from going out of some lines until too many people are scrambling in one place. THEN we let them purchase some mega-cells outside the line. Server-contribution. Just tell them the natives are there, they won't doubt. People are stupid.

[lachlaan]

80-90% reduction sounds way too harsh. I personally don't mind a long bear hunt or argo hunt given the size of the map, but my current hunts wound be the equivalent of running laps around the map in the scenario you describe. I get that you want more interaction but all the other mechanics force you to be apart from players to be safe, productive and so on. Any major natural resource would get claimed, because with a map 5-10 times smaller (arguably a random slice near boston, that doesn't necessarily have the lime and clay people need) you're bound to have a severe lack of resources.

Please try to make a compromise between existing mechanics and future mechanics, if you try to fix something so the next trick works on it, you'll end up breaking the functionality of all the old tricks. Bears would need to drop a paw and hearts much more often because quite frankly 10 players could keep half the map loaded up and taking down respawns as they show up. Anything not growable in a base would be strongly insufficient, and forcing conflict by starving players is bound to cause some anger amongst the playerbase, or at the very least make the game not at all enjoyable.

[trungdle]

80-90% reduction sounds way too harsh. I personally don't mind a long bear hunt or argo hunt given the size of the map, but my current hunts wound be the equivalent of running laps around the map in the scenario you describe. I get that you want more interaction but all the other mechanics force you to be apart from players to be safe, productive and so on. Any major natural resource would get claimed, because with a map 5-10 times smaller (arguably a random slice near boston, that doesn't necessarily have the lime and clay people need) you're bound to have a severe lack of resources.

Please try to make a compromise between existing mechanics and future mechanics, if you try to fix something so the next trick works on it, you'll end up breaking the functionality of all the old tricks. Bears would need to drop a paw and hearts much more often because quite frankly 10 players could keep half the map loaded up and taking down respawns as they show up. Anything not growable in a base would be strongly insufficient, and forcing conflict by starving players is bound to cause some anger amongst the playerbase, or at the very least make the game not at all enjoyable.

While you are right at most, I don't think of it that way. Let us have a look at Wurm Online, after the first day all the major resources are claimed, and worse, you can't re-capture them. Yet, people can still acquire them through trade. Maybe the lack of resources is a good thing, as I do want to see more resource trading in game too. Better, we can re-take them for ourselves in Salem.
Isn't the fact that you can thrive even without trading a problem? It discourages fights, interaction, planing and managing.

[JohnCarver]

80-90% reduction sounds way too harsh. I personally don't mind a long bear hunt or argo hunt given the size of the map, but my current hunts wound be the equivalent of running laps around the map in the scenario you describe. I get that you want more interaction but all the other mechanics force you to be apart from players to be safe, productive and so on. Any major natural resource would get claimed, because with a map 5-10 times smaller (arguably a random slice near boston, that doesn't necessarily have the lime and clay people need) you're bound to have a severe lack of resources.

The game has supported significantly higher populations on maps 20% this size. I think you are vastly underestimating the size of this map. I can assure you a map 20% this size could hold literally thousands more active players than we have now.

Just to put it even further into perspective for those who are having issues grasping the magnitude of the map.

A map 20% this size would still be able to hold approx 1,000 Providences.

The #1 towns in terms of size ever built have never gotten to even 20% the size of a providence town claim.

If every player built 10,000 Silver P-Claims, a map 20% this size could hold over 100,000 of them with room to spare.

[cannibalkirby]

I would personally like the map a tad smaller, but not until wipe day xD for now the size is fine, but like a 20-30% reduction might be a good idea once raiding mechanics are polished off

[trungdle]

80-90% reduction sounds way too harsh. I personally don't mind a long bear hunt or argo hunt given the size of the map, but my current hunts wound be the equivalent of running laps around the map in the scenario you describe. I get that you want more interaction but all the other mechanics force you to be apart from players to be safe, productive and so on. Any major natural resource would get claimed, because with a map 5-10 times smaller (arguably a random slice near boston, that doesn't necessarily have the lime and clay people need) you're bound to have a severe lack of resources.

The game has supported significantly higher populations on maps 20% this size. I think you are vastly underestimating the size of this map. I can assure you a map 20% this size could hold literally thousands more active players than we have now.

Just to put it even further into perspective for those who are having issues grasping the magnitude of the map.

A map 20% this size would still be able to hold approx 1,000 Providences.

The #1 towns in terms of size ever built have never gotten to even 20% the size of a providence town claim.

If every player built 10,000 Silver P-Claims, a map 20% this size could hold over 100,000 of them with room to spare.

Wao.

[lachlaan]

80-90% reduction sounds way too harsh. I personally don't mind a long bear hunt or argo hunt given the size of the map, but my current hunts wound be the equivalent of running laps around the map in the scenario you describe. I get that you want more interaction but all the other mechanics force you to be apart from players to be safe, productive and so on. Any major natural resource would get claimed, because with a map 5-10 times smaller (arguably a random slice near boston, that doesn't necessarily have the lime and clay people need) you're bound to have a severe lack of resources.

Please try to make a compromise between existing mechanics and future mechanics, if you try to fix something so the next trick works on it, you'll end up breaking the functionality of all the old tricks. Bears would need to drop a paw and hearts much more often because quite frankly 10 players could keep half the map loaded up and taking down respawns as they show up. Anything not growable in a base would be strongly insufficient, and forcing conflict by starving players is bound to cause some anger amongst the playerbase, or at the very least make the game not at all enjoyable.

While you are right at most, I don't think of it that way. Let us have a look at Wurm Online, after the first day all the major resources are claimed, and worse, you can't re-capture them. Yet, people can still acquire them through trade. Maybe the lack of resources is a good thing, as I do want to see more resource trading in game too. Better, we can re-take them for ourselves in Salem.
Isn't the fact that you can thrive even without trading a problem? It discourages fights, interaction, planing and managing.

You can thrive without trading to a certain degree, and there are definetly advantages to trading. As John has explained many times over, people in a town have many more benefits than hermits, and similarly people trading have many more benefits than by just being in a town with other people. The point is wether the PvP of the game will allow for a back and forth exchange in resources on a level playing field. And I don't seriously think a new player just joining the game will be able to bash in a veteran's brick wall to get to a lime pit to actually smelt metal to be able to even join the fight. And if resources were indeed limited, what would stop the players that do have a pit of some sort from keeping prices high, or just hoarding it on account of eventually having to crater to the bottom of the world?

But that just assumes I'm right and a 10% of current size map would have too few resources.

80-90% reduction sounds way too harsh. I personally don't mind a long bear hunt or argo hunt given the size of the map, but my current hunts wound be the equivalent of running laps around the map in the scenario you describe. I get that you want more interaction but all the other mechanics force you to be apart from players to be safe, productive and so on. Any major natural resource would get claimed, because with a map 5-10 times smaller (arguably a random slice near boston, that doesn't necessarily have the lime and clay people need) you're bound to have a severe lack of resources.

The game has supported significantly higher populations on maps 20% this size. I think you are vastly underestimating the size of this map. I can assure you a map 20% this size could hold literally thousands more active players than we have now.

The map as it stands is what .. ~500 x ~700 ? A bit farther west perhaps. 20% of that would make for a 150x150 map tile map if optimistic about how accurately you'd slice. That would make travel take significantly less, yes. Two hours across with a horse if lazy.

I meet some 1 bear per 10-20 minutes on average, sometimes less lucky sometimes more lucky, which would end up shared between many hunters now. Similarly I've had areas with only tiny patches of lime in a 10x10 map tile area. Few quarries are also an issue, and clay luckily has gotten generated with some frequency and decent size of pits. My issue isn't wether this could be feasible with a fresh map, generated accordingly, but wether a slice of this map could comfortably fit all the bases from the edges of the map, as well as not leave half of them without resources. Let's say the area immediately near boston.

I'm personally skeptical about small maps on account of how hard it already was to find a good mix of biomes and resources intersected with those biomes, as well as skeptical about the balance of all other interactions that we'd have to entertain to get through the day. If it's the only solution though, I'll reiterate and say that you should just decide wether you're up to relocating people to satisfactory locations and make some decision, none of the other options really seems like what you're saying you want as a solution, and we'll likely end up having to move sooner rather than later anyway.

Anyway I'm dragging on, as a lover of exploration I think I'll feel cramped, but I'll let you know if that'll still be the case when I find myself inside a 150x150 map (that would include darkness as well i assume?) when the day comes that I get to explore such a place.

In terms of how many pclaims would fit in a 20% size map, I'd like to point out that such an idea doesn't account for people's hunting and foraging grounds. My personal habitually explored area is at the very least 30 minutes sprint any which way, and is what I would consider a part of the town, even if unclaimed.

[Potjeh]

It would still feel 'empty' but at least you would hit another base ever 10-15 minutes of running which is what we consider ideal.

Yeah, this is not gonna happen. It'd mean people would run into each other while foraging all the time, and I reckon 50% of those encounters would be violent, with most of the violent ones ending in death of the weaker party. Starting a new character would just make it easier to die again with it's low stats and the high population density, so a lot of people will simply quit the game. With the owners gone, the bases would disappear, until you no longer have a base every 10-15 minutes.

[trungdle]

My personal habitually explored area is at the very least 30 minutes sprint any which way, and is what I would consider a part of the town, even if unclaimed.

Reminds me of that "1 day running" trade in American history. lol. I mean if we block the building of base, we can still keep the map so we can go explore. right? right? How about making that into Expedition system? 100 mega-worldcell squared per time.
About the resources concern, you are right. One of the problem of Wurm is that if you're a noob and you don't join village, you will quit. never thought of that, so yeah, scramble in some extra resources pl0x.