Why don't you advertise (derail)

[LadyGoo]

I personally enjoy the small fanbase. yes, i know that j&l probably deserve a lot more credit/attention, but imagine what it would be like with a lot of players. The world will get crammed with people, the server will be even more laggy, the world will have most likely have to be reset to a larger world, etc. there are only 2 devs and it would probably be a lot to handle for them. honestly, it comes down to the devs' decision/view of the game's future of what they want to do

The world does not have to be reset. They have extended map borders in W3 and it was fine. The current map is too big for 250 people playing and there is no proper interaction and people quit out of boredom.

[dragongirl253]

The current map is too big for 250 people playing and there is no proper interaction and people quit out of boredom.

I could be wrong, but personally, I think that it's not only an issue of the map being too big, but also of everyone having their own source of stuff. Like, for example, there's enough, say, marshes, that pretty much every village or town or hermit is more or less the only one using whichever marsh is closest to them, not to mention that most developed towns probably never really need to venture out into a marsh, cuz they probably already have enough leeches? I think that if biomes were bigger, so we had like (im just throwing out random numbers here) 2 or 3 dozen huge marshes instead of over a hundred moderately sized ones, then if two players happened to both need to go to a marsh at the same time, it would be more likely that they'd run into each other, because they'd both be in the same marsh.

[DisKagel]

The current map is too big for 250 people playing and there is no proper interaction and people quit out of boredom.

I could be wrong, but personally, I think that it's not only an issue of the map being too big, but also of everyone having their own source of stuff. Like, for example, there's enough, say, marshes, that pretty much every village or town or hermit is more or less the only one using whichever marsh is closest to them, not to mention that most developed towns probably never really need to venture out into a marsh, cuz they probably already have enough leeches? I think that if biomes were bigger, so we had like (im just throwing out random numbers here) 2 or 3 dozen huge marshes instead of over a hundred moderately sized ones, then if two players happened to both need to go to a marsh at the same time, it would be more likely that they'd run into each other, because they'd both be in the same marsh.

perhaps instead, the devs could make high q resources more difficult obtain which would introduce more competition between many people competing for the same high q resources. Although it is a tough idea to make because basically top factions would just dominate and even more people would quit the game eairler. Also world if def too big.

[Ozzy123]

The current map is too big for 250 people playing and there is no proper interaction and people quit out of boredom.

I could be wrong, but personally, I think that it's not only an issue of the map being too big, but also of everyone having their own source of stuff. Like, for example, there's enough, say, marshes, that pretty much every village or town or hermit is more or less the only one using whichever marsh is closest to them, not to mention that most developed towns probably never really need to venture out into a marsh, cuz they probably already have enough leeches? I think that if biomes were bigger, so we had like (im just throwing out random numbers here) 2 or 3 dozen huge marshes instead of over a hundred moderately sized ones, then if two players happened to both need to go to a marsh at the same time, it would be more likely that they'd run into each other, because they'd both be in the same marsh.

perhaps instead, the devs could make high q resources more difficult obtain which would introduce more competition between many people competing for the same high q resources. Although it is a tough idea to make because basically top factions would just dominate and even more people would quit the game eairler. Also world if def too big.

Everyone has acces to high q resources basically, mining is based on luck, every hermit can find a q200ish node on -5 with a bit of luck or just spending enough time, the thing that makes factions "dominate" is broken pvp, you have more warriors = you dominate.

[Teleskop]

Everyone has acces to high q resources basically, mining is based on luck, every hermit can find a q200ish node on -5 with a bit of luck or just spending enough time, the thing that makes factions "dominate" is broken pvp, you have more warriors = you dominate.

broken pvp means "i suck at pvp" in ozzy language xD

[ydex]

would be fun if pvp in 1vsMany cases wasnt so one sided tho. Sort of like when 2 Ainran fought 12+ dis back in the days and dis wouldnt go out of boats for fear of beeing killed.

At least the small group could do some dmg to bigger group. I'd like to see a system where if u are aggored by more then one player your delta to the aggressors would become bigger for example (highly exploitable so would need smart ppl to figure out how this would work, but still) meaning they would need teamwork and if they fail you could pick one of em off at a time.

[DDDsDD999]

I'd like to see a system where if u are aggored by more then one player your delta to the aggressors would become bigger for example (highly exploitable so would need smart ppl to figure out how this would work, but still) meaning they would need teamwork and if they fail you could pick one of em off at a time.

You mean legacy combat maneuvers? Basically where you get bonuses for people doing moves on you.

[ydex]

You mean legacy combat maneuvers? Basically where you get bonuses for people doing moves on you.

no, more like a delta thing. where say if in 1v1 then both players would get 100% stats.
if 2v1 then the 2 would each just count as 80% for example. and in 3v1 the three would each be 70% etc. So when ppl come to gank and are like 5+ then they would instead be weaker per char but ofc stronger in total.
Would mean that it might be smarter to go for 2v1's instead of ganks Many v 1 etc. would be interesting

[Zeler]

You mean legacy combat maneuvers? Basically where you get bonuses for people doing moves on you.

no, more like a delta thing. where say if in 1v1 then both players would get 100% stats.
if 2v1 then the 2 would each just count as 80% for example. and in 3v1 the three would each be 70% etc. So when ppl come to gank and are like 5+ then they would instead be weaker per char but ofc stronger in total.
Would mean that it might be smarter to go for 2v1's instead of ganks Many v 1 etc. would be interesting

That is plain dumb.

[ydex]

no, more like a delta thing. where say if in 1v1 then both players would get 100% stats.
if 2v1 then the 2 would each just count as 80% for example. and in 3v1 the three would each be 70% etc. So when ppl come to gank and are like 5+ then they would instead be weaker per char but ofc stronger in total.
Would mean that it might be smarter to go for 2v1's instead of ganks Many v 1 etc. would be interesting

That is plain dumb.

because it's better if the one who is alone or in lower number always lose? suprising that someone from a bigger faction would think that...
I think it would stimuate fair fighting intead of ganks, and like stated, I think that would be interesting.