Map Size Fixes

[Potjeh]

Yeah, with population density that high *every* lime pit will be claimed.

[jesi]

Late to the party but from the beginning when JC posted it, the question seemed illogical. And then I came across this:

You realize, I hope, that all of these suggestions are to solve the problem of a map that's too large? A problem that is only occurring in this iteration of the game and that for every subsequent world generation/server/what have you, it will no longer be a problem.

Even before what Marp ( ) mentions occurs, I don't see why there needs to be a "fix" to the map. The current map does not comport with what the new Dev's want to implement. Maybe a "fix" is needed to what the Dev's want to implement.

[lachlaan]

Late to the party but from the beginning when JC posted it, the question seemed illogical. And then I came across this:

You realize, I hope, that all of these suggestions are to solve the problem of a map that's too large? A problem that is only occurring in this iteration of the game and that for every subsequent world generation/server/what have you, it will no longer be a problem.

Even before what Marp ( ) mentions occurs, I don't see why there needs to be a "fix" to the map. The current map does not comport with what the new Dev's want to implement. Maybe a "fix" is needed to what the Dev's want to implement.

They need to test wether PvP is/will be properly balanced, wether the crime/justice systems are/will be properly balanced, wether poopclaiming is effective in keeping the refund-race interesting. It's not hard to see why they want a fix for it taking 6+ hours to get across the map, but what the real issue is, is wether we want the proper fix, that is, a tiny map with the means of transportation we'd have come the "real game", or our current map with different potential bandaids speeding up travel to simulate the end-state of the game. I personally think that changing the status quo to a temporary solution will just make for less than satisfactory test conditions for the other systems. So I'd like them to get to test and tweak PvP and all the other systems properly, but for that I'd also like to see that they're commited to implementing it properly, without screwing over more than half the playerbase. And no this isn't just the viewpoint of someone that would potentially suffer from a poor implementation of a resize, but more a concern for any and all player's enjoyment as I'd not like to see anyone frakked over, not even tribe, not even the baddies of the game.

[Potjeh]

Isn't the expeditions system the go-to option for testing all sorts of things? IMO they should push it to the top of development priorities list.

[lachlaan]

I was under the impression that expeditions were just a way to add new things in, and also give the players that like a more ephemeral existence some thrills somewhere that wouldn't end up wrecking all the playerbase's work from the past 10 days every time someone got triggerhappy. This is still the beta .. alpha ... something, they need to test how the main world will behave with main world pvp rules and mechanics, expeditions will have their own ruleset that will also need testing, and i'm sure we'll get at least one iteration of an expedition just to help them iron out the kinks before release.

Also, I see a sneaky Jorb, HAI JORB, why do you never come say hi to us? Don't be a unicorn, visit more often o/

Edit: You must guide the new guys along their journey of destruction. Methinks they're about to be forced to cause a flood of tears, and you, our Noah, know how to navigate such waters after the endless floods you've had to cause.

[JohnCarver]

I don't see why there needs to be a "fix" to the map.

Then that would be because you never traveled to the end of the map to summon a player.

The current map does not comport with what the new Dev's want to implement. Maybe a "fix" is needed to what the Dev's want to implement.

Just because a mechanic is broken, doesn't mean all our design changes should be changed to fit the broken mechanic. It means the mechanic itself that is causing the issue needs attention.

Isn't the expeditions system the go-to option for testing all sorts of things? IMO they should push it to the top of development priorities list.

We could perhaps try to prioritize it, but expeditions would just fracture the player base and further the problem with the providence map. It is also at the end of our roadmap for a reason.

[alprice]

I want a do over and I would like to see a 4th option that reads, leave map alone.

[agentlemanloser]

I'd like to reiterate that I think the map design itself also requires a serious rethink along with the related issue of size, as I am not entirely convinced that simply shrinking the map will entirely address the deeper cause of the complaint you have with player distribution. We are discussing, in part, the relative "emptiness" of the map and the distances required to cross to reach one's goal. However, aside from raiding/justice seeking, what reasons are there to even bother traveling? Motivation must also be addressed. Loftar, for whatever reason, decided to nix any regional distinctiveness when he wrote the mapgen code this round, and I genuinely feel that this is an error. The map should be significantly smaller, yes, and fast-travel outposts are absolutely the correct design choice independent of map size, but players still need reasons to travel aside from raiding/vengeance. As it is now, there isn't really much motivation to travel to find a good location to settle, since Loftar designed this map to be very uniform. The darkness will eventually become a distinct region with distinct resources and creatures, and will thus be a draw, but, aside from the ocean, there are no real distinctive regions now. I suggest that biomes be made larger and more unified and have far more unique resources and animals (and to anticipate an objection, while, say, bear might only appear in certain biomes, one can easily find all biomes in a two or three tile radius in most places). That alone would have forced players, especially on a smaller map, to cluster closer together, simply because ideal habitable regions wouldn't be scattered every third tile. Indeed, that seemed to be the consequence of previous map design. Loftar actually complained once that the action in the previous worlds was taking place on the edges of grasslands and forests and nowhere else, but that doesn't strike me as much of a problem, since it meant that in practice the populations were denser in certain areas. It also meant that determined players and towns could hide in less habitable biomes, since those biomes were massive and less traveled. Add to this, say, distinct mountain regions with unique flora and fauna (mountain goats, mountain lions, mountain . . . yeti, I guess - I don't hike much) or massive swamps with alligators and whatever else swamps contain (I don't airboat much, either), and you'd give players a reason to light out for the territories, as Huck Finn once said, and, just as importantly, a place to hide on smaller maps, especially if these regions are made to be particularly brutal, as they should be.

I'd also like to point out that it is probably possible to rewrite the mapgen code and reroll the word without deleting player claims. That info is stored, so claims could likely be dropped down randomly during the map rewrite. The locations probably wouldn't be ideal and the bases might be a touch screwed up due to elevation issues, but enough would be preserved that players wouldn't be starting over. Now, I'm not at all familiar with Loftar's programming, but pushing claim info forward shouldn't be outside the realm of possibility (although writing the code to do this might be). At any rate, I feel map design is itself integral to the size discussion, since the design affects the player's experience of size.

[jorb]

Also, I see a sneaky Jorb, HAI JORB, why do you never come say hi to us?

Hi!

[JohnCarver]

I'd like to reiterate that I think the map design itself also requires a serious rethink along with the related issue of size, as I am not entirely convinced that simply shrinking the map will entirely address the deeper cause of the complaint you have with player distribution. We are discussing, in part, the relative "emptiness" of the map and the distances required to cross to reach one's goal. However, aside from raiding/justice seeking, what reasons are there to even bother traveling? Motivation must also be addressed. Loftar, for whatever reason, decided to nix any regional distinctiveness when he wrote the mapgen code this round, and I genuinely feel that this is an error. The map should be significantly smaller, yes, and fast-travel outposts are absolutely the correct design choice independent of map size, but players still need reasons to travel aside from raiding/vengeance. As it is now, there isn't really much motivation to travel to find a good location to settle, since Loftar designed this map to be very uniform. The darkness will eventually become a distinct region with distinct resources and creatures, and will thus be a draw, but, aside from the ocean, there are no real distinctive regions now. I suggest that biomes be made larger and more unified and have far more unique resources and animals (and to anticipate an objection, while, say, bear might only appear in certain biomes, one can easily find all biomes in a two or three tile radius in most places). That alone would have forced players, especially on a smaller map, to cluster closer together, simply because ideal habitable regions wouldn't be scattered every third tile. Indeed, that seemed to be the consequence of previous map design. Loftar actually complained once that the action in the previous worlds was taking place on the edges of grasslands and forests and nowhere else, but that doesn't strike me as much of a problem, since it meant that in practice the populations were denser in certain areas. It also meant that determined players and towns could hide in less habitable biomes, since those biomes were massive and less traveled. Add to this, say, distinct mountain regions with unique flora and fauna (mountain goats, mountain lions, mountain . . . yeti, I guess - I don't hike much) or massive swamps with alligators and whatever else swamps contain (I don't airboat much, either), and you'd give players a reason to light out for the territories, as Huck Finn once said, and, just as importantly, a place to hide on smaller maps, especially if these regions are made to be particularly brutal, as they should be.

I'd also like to point out that it is probably possible to rewrite the mapgen code and reroll the word without deleting player claims. That info is stored, so claims could likely be dropped down randomly during the map rewrite. The locations probably wouldn't be ideal and the bases might be a touch screwed up due to elevation issues, but enough would be preserved that players wouldn't be starting over. Now, I'm not at all familiar with Loftar's programming, but pushing claim info forward shouldn't be outside the realm of possibility (although writing the code to do this might be). At any rate, I feel map design is itself integral to the size discussion, since the design affects the player's experience of size.

Yes, we consider the map broken due to biome sizes, sizes in the bodies of water, as well as waterways that connect them as well. You bring up a lot of good points.