World 6

[TeckXKnight]

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...

No one has said you can't plan, discuss, or do whatever else; threads and posts demanding world resets are just a blight. They offer nothing constructive and always turn into mudslinging. Unless this has magically changed (it hasn't if the last two months have told us anything) then the rule still sticks as one that prevents flaming and generally unnecessary asshattery.

[Tonkyhonk]

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

you were not around back then, but around when w3 ended, people gave feedback on w3 being too huge that you hardly meet anyone while playing and made it feel like a singleplayer game unless you spawn at someone's place, or that nothing much happens because of too much space and no competitions or disputes. jorb and loftar listened. you need to be more persuasive than that to change their mind.

when you disappeared in w3, we were still aiming high and tried so hard to declaim the mine claim, but wasnt as easy as you can now because the lp system was different and we never used bots. we were getting pretty close to declaiming it and maybe could have succeeded doing it if w3 lasted longer. (neo and you gave up on it pretty quickly after checking some spots, but the rest of us still tried because it was a challenge, no matter if it had minerals or not.)

[Yolan]

It was just a casual suggestion as an alternative to a world reset, which is what I'd prefer. Also, I'm not saying that its not possible to get resources, or that the current world isn't fun or worth playing, if that's what you thought.

Also, I can't remember quitting anything because I couldn't find resources, mainly because I'm a noob who wouldn't know what to do with resources even if I had them. Are you talking about World"s End? Sorry, I just can't remember.

[BoOty]

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.

It was expanded from 5x5 to 9x9 (81 supergrids). Bigger world is much more challenging, with the developing of the world map should be expanded.

[krikke93]

I'd like to see a bigger map too

[TeckXKnight]

I'd like to see a bigger map too :)

I think that you'd be better offer starting a thread to debate the necessity and benefit of expanding the map rather than asking for it here.

[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).

[Joe69]

I would like to see the world get expanded by a few super grids over time and that would give some players a chance to find and claim new nodes if there was a way of adding them in without everyone finding out when it happened.

[dagrimreefah]

I WOULD LIKE TO SEE I WOULD LIKE TO SEE...

[ewlol]

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.