The world should be smaller/condensed

This is of course just my opinion, but I 100% believe the world needs to be shrunk and be smaller overall. I'm not entirely sure why it was made larger to begin with.

I have currently never even gotten out of the Riverlands and the whole biome area already feels like its own entire game world. And that is not neccessarily a good thing because by it's sheer gigantic size right now it feels very bare-bones and a little "lifeless". Not all areas, but I took my time to run from node to node just now and there is so much empty space that looks barren. That's not my main issue though. The world being so absolutely large will fragment player populations I think. Already you see very few people around just traveling from point A to B and we currently ONLY have the Riverlands (not even counting the desert etc.) Now imagine if we had all races, all biomes, all starter zones... How much more fragmented will player populations be then? I strongly believe that is going to be a very big issue and I think the world size should most definitely be more condensed and shrunk. I cannot imagine how ridiculously large the world will end up being once all other races and starting points are in the game etc. I don't think it'll do the game any good. Large doesn't to always be better. If Intrepid already has issues filling up a biome with interesting content throughout, I can't imagine how it'll be like later on. Maybe you share these concerns, or maybe it's not an issue to some but I felt like this had to be brought up.

Find more posts tagged with

Comments

patrick68794

How about we let them fully populate the section of the world we're testing in and bring all of their systems and mechanics online first before jumping to conclusions like this?

Caww

the plan for 10,000 concurrent players and 50,000 accounts per server is gonna take a lot of room for players not to feel constricted especially once the nodes are introduced and populated

xDrac

patrick68794 wrote: »

How about we let them fully populate the section of the world we're testing in and bring all of their systems and mechanics online first before jumping to conclusions like this?

I'm not saying it needs to be done no matter what, I'm just saying it's a concern for me because I imagine it'd be hard to resize it later on again.
I was under the assumption the Riverlands were pretty much "done" and if that's how "done" looks like, ugh.

Tahiti02

But why? Dont you want to feel like your in a world and not a lobby? I feel we've had enough games where to cross the map takes 5 minutes. Scale matters a lot, and AOC should never change that.

Caeryl

The fragmenting of the population is by intention. You're supposed to choose a node as home turf and operate in that general area.

Leukael

Respectfully disagree. I like that the world is large and felt the server I played on was too packed with players (Resna) most of the time. There were tons of fun places (not just POIs) that I could grind for different reasons. I think you need an eye for detail or a friend who does to get the most out of the game.

Chicago

i agree/disagree, i think if intrepid wants the make the map as big as it is, they need to nail the fact that the servers need a gigantic server population, servers will need 10-20,000 active players with server caps of 50,000+ to make the world feel alive, if intrepid can nail this with all their new technology then i think the size is fine, if they can't then i do agree the world is to big. I will add as someone that has been testing since the first spot tests, i would not worry about this being ' finished' the world has come a long way in just two months so lets see how it looks in p3 when polish is added. also from what i have experienced the desert and the tropics are no where near the size of the riverlands, like maybe 1/4 so maybe its not all the biomes

Lord_Pico

If we are allowed to pick a plot of the land and build a house on it like Arch age you will quickly see that land fill up with people's houses crafting stations and farms. And nobody wants a crappy looking house so most people's plots were very decorated and appealing so I think that land will be necessary in the future depending on how much of it they let us use for player housing.

Song13

Chicago wrote: »

i agree/disagree, i think if intrepid wants the make the map as big as it is, they need to nail the fact that the servers need a gigantic server population, servers will need 10-20,000 active players with server caps of 50,000+ to make the world feel alive, if intrepid can nail this with all their new technology then i think the size is fine, if they can't then i do agree the world is to big. I will add as someone that has been testing since the first spot tests, i would not worry about this being ' finished' the world has come a long way in just two months so lets see how it looks in p3 when polish is added. also from what i have experienced the desert and the tropics are no where near the size of the riverlands, like maybe 1/4 so maybe its not all the biomes

I very much agree here. Chicago said basically what I was going to say

LivesUnderBridge

While I see the point about population density, I would worry that reducing the world size could have a negative impact based on how the node system works. As a node advances, it will lock the progression of other nodes nearby, and stifle some of the development of a server. This, in my humble opinion and with my potentially limited understanding, could be detrimental to what Ashes hopes to offer.

Hooch

If you thought the Riverlands was done, you were just misinformed. Its not remotely finished, like less than 1/3rd is even fleshed out. COMBINE THAT WITH THE FACT... freeholds need room to exist. Idk man, its WAY WAY WAY too early for this to be a concern.

katarinae

Not only is the Riverlands not finished but there must be room for Freeholds and Guild Halls. We can't forget about castles either that have not been implemented yet. Not to mention the changes made when a node stage gets higher that what we are currently able to test. Node stages will also determine the size of the player housing available. Ashes intended that each biome be a living changing world.

I suggest that you take a peak at AOC Wiki to get a better grasp on what's laying in wait for us. If, as others have mentioned, the population is not large enough to fill what the server accommodations are set to be then I would be more likely to agree with you.

palabana

Bigger scale means bigger time to reach a destination. In Ashes, time is everything. Time to raids, time to dungeons and most importantly, time to a Castle or a Node. If everything is so close to each other, you won't have time to prepare for War or Sieges. I'd go as far as to say Nodes itself will be very meaningless since everything is so close to each other that the promise of different content per server will not exist as there isn't enough space to allow for differing content by landmass occupied by players.

Austrinaut

Caww wrote: »

the plan for 10,000 concurrent players and 50,000 accounts per server is gonna take a lot of room for players not to feel constricted especially once the nodes are introduced and populated

I really think we're going to see how this feels during the beta test, and that's how/when they'll revise that target.

Smaashley

I do not entirely agree with the original post, because I'm aware that this is an Alpha and content shall arrive soon TM. BUT, hear me out.

For the alpha first weekend, I observed something that had me concerned. We were almost 3,000 players in one biome and when we left Lionhold/starter area, we didn't cross many players, although it can be considered okay for some people. Considering at launch they want 10,000 players maximum in one realm, they gonna have 18 times more biomes spread out in the world. I feel like 10,000 players in all this vast world, it is gonna feel empty asf

Let's say there's 10,000 players spread out into 10 different biomes for social sake, so 8 biomes unpopulated. This is 1,000 players in a single biome. That's NOTHING near well populated for the massive terrain they give us. I feel this is gonna be VERY empty populated once they get all biomes or even like 5 biomes. I actually think that 3,000 players in Riverlands is okayish for population. Proportionally, they should make concurrent players at least 4x 10,000 to compensate the big terrain they gonna give us. Plus, more players = more social economy and politics.

yianni_LoD

freeholds need room...

xDrac

Smaashley wrote: »

For the alpha first weekend, I observed something that had me concerned. We were almost 3,000 players in one biome and when we left Lionhold/starter area, we didn't cross many players, although it can be considered okay for some people. Considering at launch they want 10,000 players maximum in one realm, they gonna have 18 times more biomes spread out in the world. I feel like 10,000 players in all this vast world, it is gonna feel empty asf

Let's say there's 10,000 players spread out into 10 different biomes for social sake, so 8 biomes unpopulated. This is 1,000 players in a single biome. That's NOTHING near well populated for the massive terrain they give us. I feel this is gonna be VERY empty populated once they get all biomes or even like 5 biomes. I actually think that 3,000 players in Riverlands is okayish for population. Proportionally, they should make concurrent players at least 4x 10,000 to compensate the big terrain they gonna give us. Plus, more players = more social economy and politics.

Exactly that's what I mean. And I think the likelyhood of there being 5.000-10.000 players concurrently is kinda slim, especially when the populations inevitably will dwindle after months or years.

But okay I also did not know the Riverlands are not remotely finished yet, so that leaves plenty of time to fill it up more etc.

Child Item