smaller world

[Aerona]

I wouldn't mind trying it out, though I think it should wait until the whole 'expanding the map after it's gone live' thing has been figured out. Otherwise there's no way to relieve pressure if it turns out this does in fact turn the new world into a community pressure cooker.

[Dawidio123]

Smaller world would help A LOT (And obviously better for people looking for pvp) once playerbase starts to drop, but, it might be annoying for many early on due to factions swinging their dicks around bashing anyone even remotely near them (Unless you join their zoo that they keep for later kingdom xp).
Having the world be a gigantic pangea with islands around actually sounds a lot better than what we have rn even if the overall size remains the same.

[Clemins]

If not a smaller world, then definitely the central Pangea continent spawn, leaving some medium-sized islands on the periphery for explorers and isolationists once the snekkja era has begun.

Preferably a smaller worldsize too, though.

[ricky]

Back in world 9 when they had infinite map gen I boated and walked 72 straight hours northwest and never saw anyone for the 3 months I played. it was heaven.

[overtyped]

Bob Dole is not into petanko's, but he would like the world to be more flat.

[Rebs]

I think it's worth a try, even if just to find out if it really is a bad idea. We've had clearly too large worlds before, but have we ever had world before that was clearly too small? I think the fear of small worlds comes purely from speculation, which isn't always right. It's like how many new players dread losing all their progress at a world reset, but once you've actually tried it it turns out losing everything actually makes things a lot more fun.

Been saying this for years now, being raided and losing everything can and should be considered prolonging content and play time longevity. From a personally point legacy worlds were some of my most played worlds as I could never get to end-game content due to all the raiding/ganking and magical arrows flying through palisades.

More on topic with OP and your first point; Small world could be a lot of fun, bumping into people more often, and even PvE players might have to start thinking about PvP due to land conflicts. It would certainly be interesting to see, for science!

Or as mentioned a few times in this thread, central spawning would be also neat again. W12 felt so populated early world and it was certainly a different vibe.

[Massa]

shaving even 10% off the width and height of the world would have big changes

it doesn't have to be something dramatic

[overtyped]

I think it's worth a try, even if just to find out if it really is a bad idea. We've had clearly too large worlds before, but have we ever had world before that was clearly too small? I think the fear of small worlds comes purely from speculation, which isn't always right. It's like how many new players dread losing all their progress at a world reset, but once you've actually tried it it turns out losing everything actually makes things a lot more fun.

Been saying this for years now, being raided and losing everything can and should be considered prolonging content and play time longevity. From a personally point legacy worlds were some of my most played worlds as I could never get to end-game content due to all the raiding/ganking and magical arrows flying through palisades.

More on topic with OP and your first point; Small world could be a lot of fun, bumping into people more often, and even PvE players might have to start thinking about PvP due to land conflicts. It would certainly be interesting to see, for science!

Or as mentioned a few times in this thread, central spawning would be also neat again. W12 felt so populated early world and it was certainly a different vibe.

It would be cool if the world started out small, and scaled up if needed.

[Aerona]

Yes, Loftar spoke about wanting to do that during the stream. He even mentioned the reason he didn't want the map to have ocean borders was to make this possible.

[Reiber]

I think it's worth a try, even if just to find out if it really is a bad idea. We've had clearly too large worlds before, but have we ever had world before that was clearly too small? I think the fear of small worlds comes purely from speculation, which isn't always right. It's like how many new players dread losing all their progress at a world reset, but once you've actually tried it it turns out losing everything actually makes things a lot more fun.

Been saying this for years now, being raided and losing everything can and should be considered prolonging content and play time longevity. From a personally point legacy worlds were some of my most played worlds as I could never get to end-game content due to all the raiding/ganking and magical arrows flying through palisades.

More on topic with OP and your first point; Small world could be a lot of fun, bumping into people more often, and even PvE players might have to start thinking about PvP due to land conflicts. It would certainly be interesting to see, for science!

Or as mentioned a few times in this thread, central spawning would be also neat again. W12 felt so populated early world and it was certainly a different vibe.

It would be cool if the world started out small, and scaled up if needed.

we have already had an periodically expanding map, once the size increased people have had either quit, or settled, leaving the new areas basically untouched, while everybody complained about either being in some factions backyard, or because there where to much spruces setteling on your porch.