Well, the OP ‘problem’ isn’t a problem. It’s just conjecture based upon assumptions. Fine for ‘what if,’ but there’s nothing solid here to form an argument.
So, how about we wait for Alpha 2 to find out more?
Nah, I'm good. I was only pointing out that we were going nowhere productive with this.
I mean, this thread was always going no where.
At the end of the day, if Intrepid want freeholds to be scarce, they will make that happen. If they want to ensure all players that want one can get one, they will make that happen.
The only thing that matters is what Intrepid intend, and as Unknown pointed out, that changes based on what development dictates (glad he changed that from "on a whim").
Nah, I'm good. I was only pointing out that we were going nowhere productive with this.
I mean, this thread was always going no where.
At the end of the day, if Intrepid want freeholds to be scarce, they will make that happen. If they want to ensure all players that want one can get one, they will make that happen.
The only thing that matters is what Intrepid intend, and as Unknown pointed out, that changes based on what development dictates (glad he changed that from "on a whim").
So, what you guys are saying is that I wasted my time to bring up a problem that might arise in the future because regardless of what I think or the community thinks, Intrepid won't listen? I heard it was the opposite, but I might be wrong on that one. *shrugs* I rest my case, then....since it won't be heard anyways.
Though, one last question before I go....Seriously...? How about we wait until A2 when the map would be completed to know more about it to THEN suggest they make the map bigger? I'm just going to SMH on that one.
Worth pointing out as well that only a small percentage of freeholds will actually be in highly desirable areas, close to a metropolis node for example.
So, what you guys are saying is that I wasted my time to bring up a problem that might arise in the future because regardless of what I think or the community thinks, Intrepid won't listen?
Basically, yeah.
If the game design dictates that freeholds need to be rare, it doesn't really matter what players that have not played the game at all think.
If the game design dictates that freeholds need to be common, it doesn't really matter what players that have not played the game think at all.
Right now, YOU don't know how important a freehold will be. YOU don't know how expensive a freehold you will. YOU don't know how many people are likely to want one. YOU don't know how much competition Intrepid want over freehold space (is space for freeholds something they want people to declare sieges over? I don't know, but neither do YOU).
Why then, should Intrepid listen to YOU, when you use some broken math on some assumed numbers to support the claim that there will not be enough freehold space?
This thread is now more focused on why its dumb to highlight issues that may occur, than talking about the issue itself. This happens so often here lol
This thread is now more focused on why its dumb to highlight issues that may occur, than talking about the issue itself. This happens so often here lol
So, what is the issue this thread was even about?
Not enough space for freeholds?
How do we even know there isn't enough space for freeholds? How do we know if Intrepid want us to fight over them or not?
If we don't know these things, how can we discuss whether there is enough space for freeholds or not?
Around 8-10k concurrent users per server is projected.[33][13][34][35]
Initially there will be a limited number of registered accounts (approximately 15,000) per server to help mitigate login queues.[36]
This limit will increase over time to around 50,000 registered accounts per server.[36][37][38]
According to Google, 1 Acre is 0.00404686 km², making a freehold 0.00404686 km² / 2 = 0.00202343 km². (Unfortunately, arsnn was off by an order of magnitude on this constant when they tried to do similar math.)
Based on this map, the world seems to be about 60% land. We're gonna call it 50%, in order to simplify the math, and be slightly conservative. If we get to the point where the numbers are "close", there'll be something to discuss regardless.
So let's do some math.
1. A freehold is 0.00202343 km².
2. Considering only the surface, the world is 480 km². (We'll remove water later.)
3. We see that this amount of space (before we reserve any of it for other things) can be divided into 480/0.00202343 = 237221 freehold plots.
4. With only 50% land (see above), we now have 237221/2 = 1163610.5ERROR. See my post below for the correct analysis, as well as a broader discussion of the situation. freehold plots worth of space.
5. With 50,000 registered accounts per server, this leaves us with enough room to grant each player 1163610.5 / 50000 = 23.27221 freeholds.
Put another way, (1/23.27221 = ) 4.3% of the map would be occupied by freeholds if all players chose to have one, leaving 95.7% of the map free for node structures, wilderness, grind spots, and everything else. (Remember that we've already accounted for water, and we haven't used any of the space available in the under-realms, and of course remember that freeholds must be near nodes. They won't be out in the wilderness.)
Around 8-10k concurrent users per server is projected.[33][13][34][35]
Initially there will be a limited number of registered accounts (approximately 15,000) per server to help mitigate login queues.[36]
This limit will increase over time to around 50,000 registered accounts per server.[36][37][38]
According to Google, 1 Acre is 0.00404686 km², making a freehold 0.00404686 km² / 2 = 0.00202343 km². (Unfortunately, arsnn was off by an order of magnitude on this constant when they tried to do similar math.)
Based on this map, the world seems to be about 60% land. We're gonna call it 50%, in order to simplify the math, and be slightly conservative. If we get to the point where the numbers are "close", there'll be something to discuss regardless.
So let's do some math.
1. A freehold is 0.00202343 km².
2. Considering only the surface, the world is 480 km². (We'll remove water later.)
3. We see that this amount of space (before we reserve any of it for other things) can be divided into 480/0.00202343 = 237221 freehold plots.
4. With only 50% land (see above), we now have 237221/2 = 1163610.5 freehold plots worth of space.
5. With 50,000 registered accounts per server, this leaves us with enough room to grant each player 1163610.5 / 50000 = 23.27221 freeholds.
Put another way, (1/23.27221 = ) 4.3% of the map would be occupied by freeholds if all players chose to have one, leaving 95.7% of the map free for node structures, wilderness, grind spots, and everything else. (Remember that we've already accounted for water, and we haven't used any of the space available in the under-realms, and of course remember that freeholds must be near nodes. They won't be out in the wilderness.)
You confused the hell out of me here
I did not make a conversion error, like a first thought.
What i did was i wrongly typed out "480km² divided by 0.05 km² = 96000"
The result was right, but i missed a 0 in 0.005km². And also what i did was round 0.4 to 0.5 to make it simpler.
The exact result for freehold plots that fit on the landmass is 118.610.
So why did our calculation diverge so much?
Unfortunately an error snkead into step 4 of yours. 237221/2 is= 118610 which is also roughly a magnitude smaller than your result
Which means we could place ~2,37 freeholds per player on the land mass.
But due to my concerns that:
Firstly, Half of the landmass is gonna be obstructed in some way, due to cliffs,mountains, rivers,lakes,nodes, roads and inefficiencies due to natural organic map layout
and secondly most of the map that is not obstructed , will primarly used for content,
i think its hard to arive at a number where casuals may partake in the freehold system on an individual level.
Around 8-10k concurrent users per server is projected.[33][13][34][35]
Initially there will be a limited number of registered accounts (approximately 15,000) per server to help mitigate login queues.[36]
This limit will increase over time to around 50,000 registered accounts per server.[36][37][38]
According to Google, 1 Acre is 0.00404686 km², making a freehold 0.00404686 km² / 2 = 0.00202343 km². (Unfortunately, arsnn was off by an order of magnitude on this constant when they tried to do similar math.)
Based on this map, the world seems to be about 60% land. We're gonna call it 50%, in order to simplify the math, and be slightly conservative. If we get to the point where the numbers are "close", there'll be something to discuss regardless.
So let's do some math.
1. A freehold is 0.00202343 km².
2. Considering only the surface, the world is 480 km². (We'll remove water later.)
3. We see that this amount of space (before we reserve any of it for other things) can be divided into 480/0.00202343 = 237221 freehold plots.
4. With only 50% land (see above), we now have 237221/2 = 1163610.5 freehold plots worth of space.
5. With 50,000 registered accounts per server, this leaves us with enough room to grant each player 1163610.5 / 50000 = 23.27221 freeholds.
Put another way, (1/23.27221 = ) 4.3% of the map would be occupied by freeholds if all players chose to have one, leaving 95.7% of the map free for node structures, wilderness, grind spots, and everything else. (Remember that we've already accounted for water, and we haven't used any of the space available in the under-realms, and of course remember that freeholds must be near nodes. They won't be out in the wilderness.)
You confused the hell out of me here
I did not make a conversion error, like a first thought.
What i did was i wrongly typed out "480km² divided by 0.05 km² = 96000"
The result was right, but i missed a 0 in 0.005km². And also what i did was round 0.4 to 0.5 to make it simpler.
The exact result for freehold plots that fit on the landmass is 118.610.
So why did our calculation diverge so much?
Unfortunately an error snkead into step 4 of yours. 237221/2 is= 118610 which is also roughly a magnitude smaller than your result
Which means we could place ~2,37 freeholds per player on the land mass.
But due to my concerns that:
Firstly, Half of the landmass is gonna be obstructed by some way, due to cliffs,mountains, rivers,lakes,nodes, roads and inefficiencies due to natural organic map layout (PvE content might be placed in this area though)
and secondly most of the map that is not obstructed in some way will also be used for content,
i think its hard to arive at a number where casuals may partake in the freehold system on an individual level.
Entirely correct. My apologies. Rerunning my math from step 4, I get a quite different result.
4. With only 50% land (see above), we now have 237221/2 = 118610.5 freehold plots worth of space.
5. With 50,000 registered accounts per server, this leaves us with enough room to grant each player 118610.5 / 50000 = 2.37221 freeholds.
Put another way, (1/2.37221 = ) 42.2% of the map would be occupied by freeholds if all players chose to have one, leaving 57.8% of the map free for node structures, wilderness, grind spots, and everything else.
From this perspective I agree with the concern. The question is moreso what to do about it. There are obviously several options:
1. Decide that not everyone should have a freehold.
2. Require some minor upkeep on freeholds, and then assume that not all 50,000 registered accounts will be active players who will maintain a freehold. (And then presumably fall back to #1, if they're wrong.)
3. Expand the map.
4. Run out of space.
Obviously they're not going to choose "run out of space", which I think is what some posters here were getting at. It's relatively well-established that the number of freeholds any given node can support in its vicinity will be limited, so I'm not so concerned that you will have freeholds over 40% of the map.
Unfortunately, the size of the map is constrained by many other factors, some of the simplest of which are:
How far does a player have to walk to get to a new node?
How far does a player have to walk to get to a new 'biome'?
How many creatures of a given type should we have in one area (and therefore how bunched up or spread out do they need to be based on the size of that 'biome'?
There are more, but you can start to see how "number of freeholds" can't determine the actual scale of the map. At that point, all that's left to do is add new regions and push beyond the current borders, and one could make another long list of considerations there.
What I personally find most likely is that they will go with option 2, and specifically accept the consequence of option 1. Steven has said several times lately that Ashes will have winners and losers, and not everyone can be a winner. Between this and the incentive to band together to wreck a node to displace existing freeholds and take them for yourself (which plays right into the style of player driven conflict that Ashes is supposed to be about), I don't see Steven making another choice when this inevitably winds up on his desk.
I think this is something that will end up getting tuned in Beta 1, or even Alpha 2. While Alpha 2 might have too few players, the number of developed nodes will be smaller as a result, so we'll still see whether a node has enough freeholds to support its local player base. I think this is something that will come onto Intrepid's radar in a timeframe that will allow them to make a sensible decision on it in relation to their goals.
@SongRune you also have to take into consideration that the majority of land area of the map is not going to be space for freeholds, most notably freeholds will have a radius that prevents another freehold from being placed near it. I did similar calculations to you in the past, but I included a chart with assumptions with "% land available for freeholds." I think my best assumption was 2%, and for that I got around 3000 freeholds being available across the entire map.
0
DygzMember, Braver of Worlds, Kickstarter, Alpha One
I'm not trying to make anything specific happen other than maybe to hope for the map size to increase, as it is even in the title of this very forum post. Of course there may be changes in the future. That is the point of this very post, to help make better informed decisions/changes. I don't get your posts as all I'm really hearing is that you want to shoot me down due to your belief things will be better regardless. Isn't that the definition of copium or is it hopium?
I mean... you don't know what the map size actually is.
There is no way for us to know how much room there is for freeholds - until we test it.
Or unless the devs share their projections/demos in a dev livestream.
The devs should be quite capable of making sure the world is large enough to accomodate the number of freeholds they want and also still have space to appreciate unoccupied environments in the various biomes.
1
DygzMember, Braver of Worlds, Kickstarter, Alpha One
So, what you guys are saying is that I wasted my time to bring up a problem that might arise in the future because regardless of what I think or the community thinks, Intrepid won't listen? I heard it was the opposite, but I might be wrong on that one. *shrugs* I rest my case, then....since it won't be heard anyways.
Though, one last question before I go....Seriously...? How about we wait until A2 when the map would be completed to know more about it to THEN suggest they make the map bigger? I'm just going to SMH on that one.
We're saying you've made up a problem in your head. You haven't convinced us it's an actual problem. If it's not a problem, IS doesn't have to do anything to rectify the problem because the problem does not exist.
And, we can't determine whether it's an actual problem until we test it in Alpha Two.
I think it's fine to have concerns over systems in the game, and see how they play out I Alpha 2. There are also concerns we have now that may be untestable for a large part of Alpha 2, for instance maybe Intrepid doesn't intend to have 10k concurrent players in Alpha 2.
Having also played a ton of Alpha One, I'd say that I hope that the map size is much larger than Alpha Island being just 10% of the map, especially if that estimate is including ocean area. It's large on foot, but on a mount it wasn't hard to get around, which has major implications for the need for caravans, and localized economies. Also, with 10,000 players on a server, I'm worried about overcrowding in cities.
I'm excited for Alpha Two and hope to see them increase the land size by quite a bit.
Increasing the size of the world map is cool, I like that.... But on the premise that there won't be enough space for freeholds is flawed.
Its not a problem to start with mainly because it's not intended for everyone to have them (not just based on whether they want it or not but also because there isn't space for it), like every other luxury in the game (cottages and mansions being examples) they are meant to be highly contested and it is not part of the design for everyone to have them.
As for the concern for cluster, that won't be the case because Steven (and the Intrepid team) clearly wants us to enjoy the view of the world they are creating and that would not be ruined by cluster of freeholds, that's not to say you won't see maybe 3-5 freeholds in an area but that would not be a consistent thing as the terrain is also an important factor in placing freeholds along with POIs and roads etc
I'd also like to play in a bigger world, but whatever works for Intrepid works for me as well.... The world is already big enough.
Also if you want to make use of a freehold, you don't have to own one, you could discuss with friends you make in the game that have one, which also boost one thing Intrepid is highly focused on and that is the interaction between players.... Even solo players would have to interact with others from time to time to get a good foothold in the economics, politics and POI knowledge in his server. Honestly I have to pause myself here so to concclude: I'd like a bigger world yes (my opinion and @Sheeta along with others as well) but the freehold system is not broken or it doesn't have any issues so far, it's not meant to be owned by everyone even if everyone wanted it. So that's that 😊
I think it's fine to have concerns over systems in the game, and see how they play out I Alpha 2.
Indeed it is.
Having a concern that this may be an issue is perfectly valid.
Attempting to use math that is both broken and based on assumptions in some sad attempt to "prove" that it is a problem is, well, a problem.
Suggesting fixes to this "proven" problem based on broken math that is founded on baseless assumptions, however, is one step too far.
So you are telling me you did not read what I said? I never claimed anything was a problem. I said "Probable" and "May arise" as a problem. The only claim, if you want to be so technical, was the statement in the title which would be more or less correct because not only I, but 3 other people in this post have come to the same conclusion. Now instead of lying about me saying that I said I had proved there was a problem, just say that calculations is an opinion and leave it at that.
not only I, but 3 other people in this post have come to the same conclusion.
They came to the same conclusion using the same basic flawed assumptions.
If I were to make all of the assumptions you made, I would come to that same conclusion. However, I would also be disappointed with myself for making those assumptions.
not only I, but 3 other people in this post have come to the same conclusion.
They came to the same conclusion using the same basic flawed assumptions.
If I were to make all of the assumptions you made, I would come to that same conclusion. However, I would also be disappointed with myself for making those assumptions.
Ah, so since you did not address the fact that you lied, you're misdirecting to a different issue? You'd make a great politician. I think Biden has a job opening as the head of the ministry of truth. Though with you circling back, you might be best to take over Jen Psaki's job. You might just be better at it than her.
I gotta thank you for saying the calculation is an opinion, though. I just hope you leave it at that.
TLDR: YES, I WANT the map size to increase so that my presumptions are thrown out. That's the point.
At best, you said you want to see the fix you have proposed for the issue you think you have found, regardless of whether it is an issue or not.
Seriously. That is worse than any presumed lie you may think I might have told.
How about you just leave it at that?
So wanting a game to have a bigger map is more damning than lying about what others say. That is an interesting view of the world. Good to know there are some people out there like that....so I can avoid them like the plague. =P I'll come back if I see any more lies about me. We'll see if there is a next episode....OF DRAGON BALL Z!!
TLDR: YES, I WANT the map size to increase so that my presumptions are thrown out. That's the point.
At best, you said you want to see the fix you have proposed for the issue you think you have found, regardless of whether it is an issue or not.
Seriously. That is worse than any presumed lie you may think I might have told.
How about you just leave it at that?
So wanting a game to have a bigger map is more damning than lying about what others say.
Yes.
The game map is the size it is because that is the size Intrepid decided they want it.
Why do YOU think you know better?
That all being said, you have been talking as if your "math" is an absolute and is correct this whole thread. You haven't entertained the notion that you may be wrong - making what I said not an actual lie.
If someone says something about you that you are so offended by that you think it must be a lie, but that thing is actually at least mostly founded in truth, you should probably reassess your own actions.
TLDR: YES, I WANT the map size to increase so that my presumptions are thrown out. That's the point.
At best, you said you want to see the fix you have proposed for the issue you think you have found, regardless of whether it is an issue or not.
Seriously. That is worse than any presumed lie you may think I might have told.
How about you just leave it at that?
So wanting a game to have a bigger map is more damning than lying about what others say.
Yes.
The game map is the size it is because that is the size Intrepid decided they want it.
Why do YOU think you know better?
That all being said, you have been talking as if your "math" is an absolute and is correct this whole thread. You haven't entertained the notion that you may be wrong - making what I said not an actual lie.
If someone says something about you that you are so offended by that you think it must be a lie, but that thing is actually at least mostly founded in truth, you should probably reassess your own actions.
Wow. Still trying to double speak to say I still lied when I did not. Honey, listen. I believe you are an adult, I would hope so. So, learn from this...I beg of you. When someone says "Here are the parameters in which I did these calculations" and it was rough estimate, it is a given that the person may be wrong. Actually when someone shows proof of where and how they got the information from, they usually want others to challenge and dispute their findings so they can grow and learn from it. To automatically assume and deceive others otherwise, is pretty Orwellian especially when that person is telling you in every way they can that what you are assuming is not true.
I guess I'll have to treat you like a baby, a non-critical thinker. Honey, of course when I'm trying to predict what may happen in the future with the evidence I have on hand may be wrong......What do you think I am? God? Though, thanks for bringing to my attention that the Orwellian influence is not only infecting real life, but also gaming communities. It's kinda depressing.
‘How do we know that two and two make four? Or that the force of gravity works? Or that the past is unchangeable? If both the past and the external world exist only in the mind, and if the mind itself is controllable – what then?’ - George Orwell
‘Doublethink means the power of holding two contradictory beliefs in one’s mind simultaneously, and accepting both of them.’ - George Orwell
The only claim, if you want to be so technical, was the statement in the title which would be more or less correct because not only I, but 3 other people in this post have come to the same conclusion.
There’s no conclusion to reach here. That’s the point.
You have a concern, which is worthy of discussion, but you have little to no actual data, no inside knowledge, and a very limited perspective on the current build (as we all do) - therefore have nothing precipitate to base a conclusion on.
I like 1984 as much as the next person, but there’s nothing here that rises to the occasion.
The only claim, if you want to be so technical, was the statement in the title which would be more or less correct because not only I, but 3 other people in this post have come to the same conclusion.
There’s no conclusion to reach here. That’s the point.
You have a concern, which is worthy of discussion, but you have little to no actual data, no inside knowledge, and a very limited perspective on the current build (as we all do) - therefore have nothing precipitate to base a conclusion on.
I like 1984 as much as the next person, but there’s nothing here that rises to the occasion.
So, chill.
I'm chill with others saying my calculations and conclusions are opinion, as it is indeed a fact that it is. I never argued against this. I just get up in arms about people are using lies to shut down dissenting opinion, lies about myself or others. The main thing I value in the world is honesty and trying to grow to be a better person. To be attack as I have been when I'm being genuine and upfront with others just feels like there's nothing I can do or say to appease. Damned if I do, Damned if I don't. So there will be no dissenting opinion, only what Orwellian people believe. Though, like I said earlier, assuming people will be adults might be too much unfortunately. =/
not only I, but 3 other people in this post have come to the same conclusion.
They came to the same conclusion using the same basic flawed assumptions.
If I were to make all of the assumptions you made, I would come to that same conclusion. However, I would also be disappointed with myself for making those assumptions.
That whole discussion aside, can you show me where I went wrong? It would help me at least to understand the context of this discussion if you could show me where specifically we disagree.
I tried to be conservative and state (and cite) all of my assumptions, so I'm hoping it's straightforward to correct. I'm not perfect though, so let me know if anything's unclear and I'll try to resolve it.
My post with my assumptions & citations My post with the correction to my arithmetic (I figure this is less important than the one with my assumptions.) @Sheeta, You might have a good subject for a Q&A question, here. "Given the size of the world, is the plan for most players to be able to have their own freehold, or will they be more exclusive?" It could be a quick way to settle your worries, if only by making it clear if Intrepid took a different route.
Just a thought - what if at the time of purchasing the certificate of freehold ownership from the Node, you were presented with a grid-like map of available plots for sale and you select your plot at that time, then you can place your freehold within your already designated area of land, which would include a buffer between freeholds. While this would be more structured, it would prevent a lot of the inefficiency of people placing freeholds randomly and unknowingly to who else is around them. Perhaps land purchases go to the Node's coffers and could even be auctioned to the highest bidders? More desirable land going to those willing to pay for it?
@Sheeta, You might have a good subject for a Q&A question, here. "Given the size of the world, is the plan for most players to be able to have a freehold, or will they be more exclusive?" It could be a quick way to settle your worries, if only by making it clear if Intrepid took a different route.
Since I have to assume people are babies, here is a disclaimer: I don't not speak for IS and can only base my assumptions on the information that I have knowledge on. What I'm saying can not replace medical advice from a trained professional and...No violence! lol Sorry, I had to. =P
From what I researched, even though it might not be good enough, I do know of what I cited before. Like "The current design allows placement of freeholds anywhere in the ZOI of the node that the certificate was purchased from, including its vassal nodes. This may change as the result of testing." and what Steven has said. It is designed to be exclusive, to encourage wars on nodes. This subject, like I said before, is a side concern of mine. I was worried about casuals wanting to play solely to make their own house/freehold....Those dirty sims players! lol Though, my main concern to the hope that there will be wildness and not just suburbs everywhere. I don't mind if nothing changes from what they said they are planning on, tbh. I just wanted to help IS in suggesting something in hopes that it'll make the game better for both worlds.
Just a thought - what if at the time of purchasing the certificate of freehold ownership from the Node, you were presented with a grid-like map of available plots for sale and you select your plot at that time, then you can place your freehold within your already designated area of land, which would include a buffer between freeholds. While this would be more structured, it would prevent a lot of the inefficiency of people placing freeholds randomly and unknowingly to who else is around them. Perhaps land purchases go to the Node's coffers and could even be auctioned to the highest bidders? More desirable land going to those willing to pay for it?
The grid system might help so some degree, but compared to the amount of effort to make it and that the coding might bug out other things, it most likely won't be best to implement. Though it there was some other systems utilizing the grid, I could see it as more probable to implement.
For now I believe it's first come first serve. Now that you made me think about it, if they could make the different nodes have different requirements to have freeholds there, that would be a lot more interesting in how to make it more competitive. Pvp nodes will only allow high rankers to have freeholds, economic nodes to the highest bidder, diplomacy nodes to those who ranked high enough in votes. That sounds cool.
@Sheeta, You might have a good subject for a Q&A question, here. "Given the size of the world, is the plan for most players to be able to have their own freehold, or will they be more exclusive?" It could be a quick way to settle your worries, if only by making it clear if Intrepid took a different route.
I would be very interested in hearing the answer to this.
Comments
So, how about we wait for Alpha 2 to find out more?
I mean, this thread was always going no where.
At the end of the day, if Intrepid want freeholds to be scarce, they will make that happen. If they want to ensure all players that want one can get one, they will make that happen.
The only thing that matters is what Intrepid intend, and as Unknown pointed out, that changes based on what development dictates (glad he changed that from "on a whim").
So, what you guys are saying is that I wasted my time to bring up a problem that might arise in the future because regardless of what I think or the community thinks, Intrepid won't listen? I heard it was the opposite, but I might be wrong on that one. *shrugs* I rest my case, then....since it won't be heard anyways.
Though, one last question before I go....Seriously...? How about we wait until A2 when the map would be completed to know more about it to THEN suggest they make the map bigger? I'm just going to SMH on that one.
Basically, yeah.
If the game design dictates that freeholds need to be rare, it doesn't really matter what players that have not played the game at all think.
If the game design dictates that freeholds need to be common, it doesn't really matter what players that have not played the game think at all.
Right now, YOU don't know how important a freehold will be. YOU don't know how expensive a freehold you will. YOU don't know how many people are likely to want one. YOU don't know how much competition Intrepid want over freehold space (is space for freeholds something they want people to declare sieges over? I don't know, but neither do YOU).
Why then, should Intrepid listen to YOU, when you use some broken math on some assumed numbers to support the claim that there will not be enough freehold space?
This thread is now more focused on why its dumb to highlight issues that may occur, than talking about the issue itself. This happens so often here lol
Not enough space for freeholds?
How do we even know there isn't enough space for freeholds? How do we know if Intrepid want us to fight over them or not?
If we don't know these things, how can we discuss whether there is enough space for freeholds or not?
(ref: Wiki: Servers > Server Population)
(ref: Wiki: Freeholds)
(ref: Wiki: World map > World size)
According to Google, 1 Acre is 0.00404686 km², making a freehold 0.00404686 km² / 2 = 0.00202343 km². (Unfortunately, arsnn was off by an order of magnitude on this constant when they tried to do similar math.)
Based on this map, the world seems to be about 60% land. We're gonna call it 50%, in order to simplify the math, and be slightly conservative. If we get to the point where the numbers are "close", there'll be something to discuss regardless.
So let's do some math.
1. A freehold is 0.00202343 km².
2. Considering only the surface, the world is 480 km². (We'll remove water later.)
3. We see that this amount of space (before we reserve any of it for other things) can be divided into 480/0.00202343 = 237221 freehold plots.
4. With only 50% land (see above), we now have 237221/2 = 1163610.5 ERROR. See my post below for the correct analysis, as well as a broader discussion of the situation. freehold plots worth of space.
5. With 50,000 registered accounts per server, this leaves us with enough room to grant each player 1163610.5 / 50000 = 23.27221 freeholds.
Put another way, (1/23.27221 = ) 4.3% of the map would be occupied by freeholds if all players chose to have one, leaving 95.7% of the map free for node structures, wilderness, grind spots, and everything else. (Remember that we've already accounted for water, and we haven't used any of the space available in the under-realms, and of course remember that freeholds must be near nodes. They won't be out in the wilderness.)
You confused the hell out of me here
I did not make a conversion error, like a first thought.
What i did was i wrongly typed out "480km² divided by 0.05 km² = 96000"
The result was right, but i missed a 0 in 0.005km². And also what i did was round 0.4 to 0.5 to make it simpler.
The exact result for freehold plots that fit on the landmass is 118.610.
So why did our calculation diverge so much?
Unfortunately an error snkead into step 4 of yours. 237221/2 is= 118610 which is also roughly a magnitude smaller than your result
Which means we could place ~2,37 freeholds per player on the land mass.
But due to my concerns that:
Firstly, Half of the landmass is gonna be obstructed in some way, due to cliffs,mountains, rivers,lakes,nodes, roads and inefficiencies due to natural organic map layout
and secondly most of the map that is not obstructed , will primarly used for content,
i think its hard to arive at a number where casuals may partake in the freehold system on an individual level.
Entirely correct. My apologies. Rerunning my math from step 4, I get a quite different result.
4. With only 50% land (see above), we now have 237221/2 = 118610.5 freehold plots worth of space.
5. With 50,000 registered accounts per server, this leaves us with enough room to grant each player 118610.5 / 50000 = 2.37221 freeholds.
Put another way, (1/2.37221 = ) 42.2% of the map would be occupied by freeholds if all players chose to have one, leaving 57.8% of the map free for node structures, wilderness, grind spots, and everything else.
From this perspective I agree with the concern. The question is moreso what to do about it. There are obviously several options:
1. Decide that not everyone should have a freehold.
2. Require some minor upkeep on freeholds, and then assume that not all 50,000 registered accounts will be active players who will maintain a freehold. (And then presumably fall back to #1, if they're wrong.)
3. Expand the map.
4. Run out of space.
Obviously they're not going to choose "run out of space", which I think is what some posters here were getting at. It's relatively well-established that the number of freeholds any given node can support in its vicinity will be limited, so I'm not so concerned that you will have freeholds over 40% of the map.
Unfortunately, the size of the map is constrained by many other factors, some of the simplest of which are:
There are more, but you can start to see how "number of freeholds" can't determine the actual scale of the map. At that point, all that's left to do is add new regions and push beyond the current borders, and one could make another long list of considerations there.
What I personally find most likely is that they will go with option 2, and specifically accept the consequence of option 1. Steven has said several times lately that Ashes will have winners and losers, and not everyone can be a winner. Between this and the incentive to band together to wreck a node to displace existing freeholds and take them for yourself (which plays right into the style of player driven conflict that Ashes is supposed to be about), I don't see Steven making another choice when this inevitably winds up on his desk.
I think this is something that will end up getting tuned in Beta 1, or even Alpha 2. While Alpha 2 might have too few players, the number of developed nodes will be smaller as a result, so we'll still see whether a node has enough freeholds to support its local player base. I think this is something that will come onto Intrepid's radar in a timeframe that will allow them to make a sensible decision on it in relation to their goals.
There is no way for us to know how much room there is for freeholds - until we test it.
Or unless the devs share their projections/demos in a dev livestream.
The devs should be quite capable of making sure the world is large enough to accomodate the number of freeholds they want and also still have space to appreciate unoccupied environments in the various biomes.
And, we can't determine whether it's an actual problem until we test it in Alpha Two.
Having also played a ton of Alpha One, I'd say that I hope that the map size is much larger than Alpha Island being just 10% of the map, especially if that estimate is including ocean area. It's large on foot, but on a mount it wasn't hard to get around, which has major implications for the need for caravans, and localized economies. Also, with 10,000 players on a server, I'm worried about overcrowding in cities.
I'm excited for Alpha Two and hope to see them increase the land size by quite a bit.
Its not a problem to start with mainly because it's not intended for everyone to have them (not just based on whether they want it or not but also because there isn't space for it), like every other luxury in the game (cottages and mansions being examples) they are meant to be highly contested and it is not part of the design for everyone to have them.
As for the concern for cluster, that won't be the case because Steven (and the Intrepid team) clearly wants us to enjoy the view of the world they are creating and that would not be ruined by cluster of freeholds, that's not to say you won't see maybe 3-5 freeholds in an area but that would not be a consistent thing as the terrain is also an important factor in placing freeholds along with POIs and roads etc
I'd also like to play in a bigger world, but whatever works for Intrepid works for me as well.... The world is already big enough.
Also if you want to make use of a freehold, you don't have to own one, you could discuss with friends you make in the game that have one, which also boost one thing Intrepid is highly focused on and that is the interaction between players.... Even solo players would have to interact with others from time to time to get a good foothold in the economics, politics and POI knowledge in his server. Honestly I have to pause myself here so to concclude: I'd like a bigger world yes (my opinion and @Sheeta along with others as well) but the freehold system is not broken or it doesn't have any issues so far, it's not meant to be owned by everyone even if everyone wanted it. So that's that 😊
Having a concern that this may be an issue is perfectly valid.
Attempting to use math that is both broken and based on assumptions in some sad attempt to "prove" that it is a problem is, well, a problem.
Suggesting fixes to this "proven" problem based on broken math that is founded on baseless assumptions, however, is one step too far.
So you are telling me you did not read what I said? I never claimed anything was a problem. I said "Probable" and "May arise" as a problem. The only claim, if you want to be so technical, was the statement in the title which would be more or less correct because not only I, but 3 other people in this post have come to the same conclusion. Now instead of lying about me saying that I said I had proved there was a problem, just say that calculations is an opinion and leave it at that.
If I were to make all of the assumptions you made, I would come to that same conclusion. However, I would also be disappointed with myself for making those assumptions.
Ah, so since you did not address the fact that you lied, you're misdirecting to a different issue? You'd make a great politician. I think Biden has a job opening as the head of the ministry of truth. Though with you circling back, you might be best to take over Jen Psaki's job. You might just be better at it than her.
I gotta thank you for saying the calculation is an opinion, though. I just hope you leave it at that.
At best, you said you want to see the fix you have proposed for the issue you think you have found, regardless of whether it is an issue or not.
Seriously. That is worse than any presumed lie you may think I might have told.
How about you just leave it at that?
So wanting a game to have a bigger map is more damning than lying about what others say. That is an interesting view of the world. Good to know there are some people out there like that....so I can avoid them like the plague. =P I'll come back if I see any more lies about me. We'll see if there is a next episode....OF DRAGON BALL Z!!
The game map is the size it is because that is the size Intrepid decided they want it.
Why do YOU think you know better?
That all being said, you have been talking as if your "math" is an absolute and is correct this whole thread. You haven't entertained the notion that you may be wrong - making what I said not an actual lie.
If someone says something about you that you are so offended by that you think it must be a lie, but that thing is actually at least mostly founded in truth, you should probably reassess your own actions.
Wow. Still trying to double speak to say I still lied when I did not. Honey, listen. I believe you are an adult, I would hope so. So, learn from this...I beg of you. When someone says "Here are the parameters in which I did these calculations" and it was rough estimate, it is a given that the person may be wrong. Actually when someone shows proof of where and how they got the information from, they usually want others to challenge and dispute their findings so they can grow and learn from it. To automatically assume and deceive others otherwise, is pretty Orwellian especially when that person is telling you in every way they can that what you are assuming is not true.
I guess I'll have to treat you like a baby, a non-critical thinker. Honey, of course when I'm trying to predict what may happen in the future with the evidence I have on hand may be wrong......What do you think I am? God? Though, thanks for bringing to my attention that the Orwellian influence is not only infecting real life, but also gaming communities. It's kinda depressing.
‘How do we know that two and two make four? Or that the force of gravity works? Or that the past is unchangeable? If both the past and the external world exist only in the mind, and if the mind itself is controllable – what then?’ - George Orwell
‘Doublethink means the power of holding two contradictory beliefs in one’s mind simultaneously, and accepting both of them.’ - George Orwell
There’s no conclusion to reach here. That’s the point.
You have a concern, which is worthy of discussion, but you have little to no actual data, no inside knowledge, and a very limited perspective on the current build (as we all do) - therefore have nothing precipitate to base a conclusion on.
I like 1984 as much as the next person, but there’s nothing here that rises to the occasion.
So, chill.
I'm chill with others saying my calculations and conclusions are opinion, as it is indeed a fact that it is. I never argued against this. I just get up in arms about people are using lies to shut down dissenting opinion, lies about myself or others. The main thing I value in the world is honesty and trying to grow to be a better person. To be attack as I have been when I'm being genuine and upfront with others just feels like there's nothing I can do or say to appease. Damned if I do, Damned if I don't. So there will be no dissenting opinion, only what Orwellian people believe. Though, like I said earlier, assuming people will be adults might be too much unfortunately. =/
That whole discussion aside, can you show me where I went wrong? It would help me at least to understand the context of this discussion if you could show me where specifically we disagree.
I tried to be conservative and state (and cite) all of my assumptions, so I'm hoping it's straightforward to correct. I'm not perfect though, so let me know if anything's unclear and I'll try to resolve it.
My post with my assumptions & citations
My post with the correction to my arithmetic (I figure this is less important than the one with my assumptions.)
@Sheeta, You might have a good subject for a Q&A question, here. "Given the size of the world, is the plan for most players to be able to have their own freehold, or will they be more exclusive?" It could be a quick way to settle your worries, if only by making it clear if Intrepid took a different route.
Since I have to assume people are babies, here is a disclaimer: I don't not speak for IS and can only base my assumptions on the information that I have knowledge on. What I'm saying can not replace medical advice from a trained professional and...No violence! lol Sorry, I had to. =P
From what I researched, even though it might not be good enough, I do know of what I cited before. Like "The current design allows placement of freeholds anywhere in the ZOI of the node that the certificate was purchased from, including its vassal nodes. This may change as the result of testing." and what Steven has said. It is designed to be exclusive, to encourage wars on nodes. This subject, like I said before, is a side concern of mine. I was worried about casuals wanting to play solely to make their own house/freehold....Those dirty sims players! lol Though, my main concern to the hope that there will be wildness and not just suburbs everywhere. I don't mind if nothing changes from what they said they are planning on, tbh. I just wanted to help IS in suggesting something in hopes that it'll make the game better for both worlds.
The grid system might help so some degree, but compared to the amount of effort to make it and that the coding might bug out other things, it most likely won't be best to implement. Though it there was some other systems utilizing the grid, I could see it as more probable to implement.
For now I believe it's first come first serve. Now that you made me think about it, if they could make the different nodes have different requirements to have freeholds there, that would be a lot more interesting in how to make it more competitive. Pvp nodes will only allow high rankers to have freeholds, economic nodes to the highest bidder, diplomacy nodes to those who ranked high enough in votes. That sounds cool.
I would be very interested in hearing the answer to this.