World 6

[_Gunnar]

personally i couldn't care less about resources, the stuff that i can buy on the open market is quite nice enough (although i do like my fancy new axe, thanks grape!... [please don't take it away] ). w5 i didn't have any resources owned by my village above q40 and i still had loads of fun as an arms dealer to the factionless. the stuff wasn't spectacular quality but it got the job done (in amusing/pyrrhic ways, often, due to the nature of the customers).

i really don't want there to be a situation where you can boat for 3 supergrids and almost certainly not see anyone... its pretty cool boating down a random river and meeting someone you already know from the forums
If there were 2000 people online, then maybe expanding would be a good idea.. I don't really think its needed now though.

[TeckXKnight]

personally i couldn't care less about resources, the stuff that i can buy on the open market is quite nice enough (although i do like my fancy new axe, thanks grape!... [please don't take it away] ). w5 i didn't have any resources owned by my village above q40 and i still had loads of fun as an arms dealer to the factionless. the stuff wasn't spectacular quality but it got the job done (in amusing/pyrrhic ways, often, due to the nature of the customers).

i really don't want there to be a situation where you can boat for 3 supergrids and almost certainly not see anyone... its pretty cool boating down a random river and meeting someone you already know from the forums :)
If there were 2000 people online, then maybe expanding would be a good idea.. I don't really think its needed now though.

In World 4 we had upwards of 1,500 people on at any given time, which realistically translated to 2-3x that many total players. You could still boat or walk for forever before running into anyone. There was plenty of space and more than enough resources. Any scarcity that exists now is an artificial scarcity created by abandoned claims and people afraid to leave scents.

[loftar]

In World 4 we had upwards of 1,500 people on at any given time, which realistically translated to 2-3x that many total players.

Actually, the total number of players is usually somewhere around 7-10 times or so as many as are logged on during peaks.

[Sarchi]

I think the biggest problem people have with that reasoning is that the world still lacks a lot of regenerative capabilities, such that we are stuck living amongst the ruins of the days of 1000+ population.

What about slapping on another ring of supergrids instead? I seem to remember something like that happening in the past...

In w3, the world was expanded from 5x5 supergrids to 25x25(i think) during the middle of the world, and people could still only spawn within the original supergrids.[/quote]

I don't think it was quite that big. When I first started playing, in the middle of w3, the world was either 7x7 or 8x8. In the end of w3, 3 super grids were added to all sides of the map.

In my opinion, it wasn't that bad. It was great for adventuring, and there was still plenty of conflict.

[sabinati]

max world 3 size was 11x11

[toshirohayate]

I think the biggest problem people have with that reasoning is that the world still lacks a lot of regenerative capabilities, such that we are stuck living amongst the ruins of the days of 1000+ population.

What about slapping on another ring of supergrids instead? I seem to remember something like that happening in the past...

In w3, the world was expanded from 5x5 supergrids to 25x25(i think) during the middle of the world, and people could still only spawn within the original supergrids.

I don't think it was quite that big. When I first started playing, in the middle of w3, the world was either 7x7 or 8x8. In the end of w3, 3 super grids were added to all sides of the map.

In my opinion, it wasn't that bad. It was great for adventuring, and there was still plenty of conflict.[/quote]

A LOT more people played in W3 than now though. For obvious reasons.

[TeckXKnight]

A LOT more people played in W3 than now though. For obvious reasons.

W3 capped out at around 400-500 people online at most times. During the weekday you'd usually only see 300 people on. Maybe towards the end of the world this spiked slightly but it wasn't a significant difference. We've got pretty similar numbers now. =)

[burgingham]

In World 4 we had upwards of 1,500 people on at any given time, which realistically translated to 2-3x that many total players.

Actually, the total number of players is usually somewhere around 7-10 times or so as many as are logged on during peaks.

Total number of active accounts

You probably have to divide that by 5 or so again then to find out the actualy number of active persons playing the game.

[Nummy]

I liked w3 world size as well. Maybe it was little big, but it was a challenge. You could find a nice spot easily, but to trade you have to work up a bit (agility).

[Sarge]

The bigger world sucked ass for many reasons. One of the main reasons, at least as far as I am concerned, is that faction conflict (politics) and trade are two of the core ideals/goals (not sure what word to use here) of the game. The less higher level resource nodes are available and the closer people are in vacinity of each other, the more trade is stimulated and the more conflict is generated. Do a search on topics around regionality as example, that goes a long way to underline the base requirement for this.

By making the world bigger, all you are doing is making more resource nodes available and diluting both trade and conflict.

What I personally would support is a model/mechanic that makes personal claims destroyable/expirable (is that even a word ?) or whatever, so that someone who's claimed a node does not have 'control' over that node even though they haven't been online for months. This can be as simple as copying the village claim upkeep model directly to personal claims and that the character who owns that claim is the only one who can maintain through upkeep (inheritence still applicable).

Except that people who own the resources dont trade them and the nodes end up getting monopolized by one or two factions. If you want to stimulate more trade, its better to have little villages all over the world doing it rather than one. I think now would be a good time to expand the world, just 1 supergrid in every cardinal direction. I don't think you can look at World 3 and make the conclusion that larger worlds are bad. Haven and Hearth W6 is a whole different ballgame than W3. Back then, characters were a lot more precious than they are now; people avoided conflict. Now, characters are so much more recyclable and conflict has prospered because of it. Moreover, combat and the tactics behind it has changed immensely.

Your opening argument is a contradiction and ends with 'reducing demand will improve trade'... sorry Sioux, but I can't agree with you here mate. The fact that one or two factions monopolize high q key resources is exactly what creates the scenraio that 1) If you want some you will need to trade for it or 2) Club together and fight them for it. I'm not saying the game currently caters to enable these means (because it clearly doesn't), but that has always (afaik) been the intention of it.

Maybe a distinction should be made between how it ideally should be and how it can currently work with all the broken mechanics.