Is Arelith "too big"?

[Seven Sons of Sin]

Purely and simply out of curiousity-

- Do we have too many settlements?

- Do we have too much empty space? (Or is this a bad question, because space and optics change depending on the playerbase? i.e., Arelith Forest can be empty for 6 months, but with a handful of players, can be the bee's knees for 2 years.)

- Do we try to do too much? (expanded north, massive forests, massive underdark, extraplanar realms, massive archipelago, half-a-dozen settlements and more 'hamlets')

I've had this feeling for a couple of years, and Artos took a step to merge Soulhaven with Guldorand (which I know think has some fallout), but I still am of the opinion that there to needs to be more concise module redesign.

I know this is a philosophical divide of "busy" areas vs. "the will to explore", and I ultimately think there needs to be balance - I'm just wondering if we're imbalanced.





(I do, personally, over the past couple of weeks/months/years. But I couldn't tell you at all how to possibly rectify the feeling.)

[Cortex]

In my opinion, and in order:

• Yes, I dream of a fantasy themed settlement that replaces Brog, Myon and Bendir, there's not enough interaction going on for these. Guldorand is fine as is due to being an isolated(by design) settlement which works nicely for plenty of things, while Wharftown is directly connected to Cordor.

• No, moar is gooder.

• see above

More to explore and adventure to will never be enough.

[Sazu]

lol... at least you guys up top have more than one settlement.

Ud doesn't have enough homes and such for the player increase. On top of that with only two real settlements there's lots of infighting within districts for power(this could be good and bad).

I think a major issue is the imbalance of fighting over one settlement and not the other. One district have over seven races vying for position, and the other is the drow district.

It's not really a complaint, truth be told I knew the drow would always have their own settlements of sorts.

It makes me wonder why every other race fights for only one side, and not part of the other.

[Cortex]

Drow fight each other all the time, or at least should.

[JediMindTrix]

Drow fight each other all the time, or at least should.

There's a lot more than Drow to Andunor.

[Cortex]

Drow fight each other all the time, or at least should.

There's a lot more than Drow to Andunor.

That was a reference to Sazu's post, where I imagine he meant Devil's Table is led by one race(drow) and Sharps is led by a multitude and there is lots of infighting and mistrust due to it.

[Mithreas]

Yes and no.

I do think we could do with fewer settlements. But big wilderness areas are a good thing - more room to explore.

[Jagel]

Settlements are also better connected these days IMO. Earthkin portal, caravans, portals etc.

[Sazu]

Yes and no.

I do think we could do with fewer settlements. But big wilderness areas are a good thing - more room to explore.

Uh oh... the Surface is going to get Pit Towned... lol

[Marsi]

I'd like to see more landmarks/settlements consolidated, but in return more wilderness, travel, and "open".

I think the problem is we have too many areas that need to be inhabited in order to make sense. An empty settlement is depressing and pointless. An empty forest, hill or stretch of road... is not, for clear reasons.

An empty hillside could be anything, an empty settlement is an empty settlement.

[Irongron]

I did already merge Blingstonehold and Brogendenstein, and would have merged in Bendir with them too, were it not for the in-game resistance to the idea.

I think when we import the Land Brokerage system onto the surface people may think again about bringing settlements together, as that would mean more money, and hence more opportunities for interesting territory.

Mith is spot on when we says empty space is good to explore, its something I totally agree with , and have been doing my best to realize. More dungeons, more wilderness, these are good things.

Settlements. Yes, there are probably too many. We have plenty of players but could do with more. Should we manage to make an increase there then we can leave things as we are. If not then yes, I will reduce settlements. (Probably starting with the one with the least amount of citizens) ...or Cordor.

[Yma23]

I'm going to be the odd one out and say I think we have about the right amount of settlements. Or - to be clearer - if we were to get rid of a settlment It really should be one of the racial ones.
Why? Because if there were say, only one or two settlments, then it would make the conflict game really nasty. It would mean that if you annoy the wrong person, then you get cut off from most - polotics/banks/housing/resrouces/speedy messanger, not to mention other people to easily roleplay with.

Now don't get me wrong - I've been playing a drow on the surface for the last few months and, as such, I've been automaticaly exiled from almost all surface settlments. It's doable. It's playable (especialy now Sibiyad has a speedy) but god -DAMN- is it frustrating and I know a lot of people would just give up after a bit.

If there really tihnk if there must be a settlment cut, it needs to be one of the racial settlments. Ifeel if there were say, only one 'general' settlement (e.g. Just cordor/Wharf/Guld) then we'd get a lot of frustration. Because it would mean that there are dradticaly fewer choices a -human- can go to than an elf, dwarf or hin. As most of those are specialist, yet human settlmetns are- well - open to all.

But if we really have our heart set on removing 'settlements' My suggestion would be, yes - by all means remove a settlment but replace at least some of the houses/shops/amenities with neutral areas. Otherwise you risk making the game unplayable for characters who choose to go their own way. Want to know why Soulhaven, once a full and active hub is now empty? Well partly it's because it was really useful for those who wouldn't toe the line in settlments, for those who want to be neutral, for those who want the safty of living somewhere, and not being exiled because they looked at a settlment leader funny.

Basicaly - I'd rather see a derth of empty shops/houses than a real shortage of any player amenties. That just further encourages quarter hogging, in my opinion, and extreme bad feeling when quarter releases do happen.

[Durvayas]

I'd say a good way to deal with crowding in the UD would be to either:

A) Add more housing to the colloseum area that is attached to the Devil's Table.

B) Expand the outpost into, well... more. Its got an inn, its got a jail, its got a couple Merchant NPCs. I don't see why there wouldn't be a guardpost set up, and perhaps some housing. It has a portal to the hub as is, so it is ripe for expansion, and would be racially neutral I think. But juristiction is a wierd thing.

C) Some of that massive, open and wasted, space on the second floor of the hub could be converted into living space.

[Yma23]

I like C best. Maybe make the rooms not very nice (thus adding privilage for those who -do- toe the line) but there needs to be some allowence made for those who, for whatever reason, don't.

[CragOneEye]

Purely and simply out of curiousity-

- Do we have too many settlements?

- Do we have too much empty space? (Or is this a bad question, because space and optics change depending on the playerbase? i.e., Arelith Forest can be empty for 6 months, but with a handful of players, can be the bee's knees for 2 years.)

- Do we try to do too much? (expanded north, massive forests, massive underdark, extraplanar realms, massive archipelago, half-a-dozen settlements and more 'hamlets')

I've had this feeling for a couple of years, and Artos took a step to merge Soulhaven with Guldorand (which I know think has some fallout), but I still am of the opinion that there to needs to be more concise module redesign.

I know this is a philosophical divide of "busy" areas vs. "the will to explore", and I ultimately think there needs to be balance - I'm just wondering if we're imbalanced.





(I do, personally, over the past couple of weeks/months/years. But I couldn't tell you at all how to possibly rectify the feeling.)

I think areas would get used more if you could only get certain unique items in specific settlements. ex: you can only get certain Dwarven enchanted gear in brog from brog shops. (using that as a very rough example) but you get my drift.

[TotesTotem]

I think that less settlements would be a good idea. It centralizes RP, which for the most part is a good thing. However, a big world to explore is really important - and a huge driver for why I'm playing here. Wilderness should remain huge or get bigger!

[Syrima]

I kinda got this feeling to, but I think axing off settlements is the wrong approach. The problem with certain settlements is they're annoying to get to and there's no reason to go to them really unless you have business there or you want to see the shops.

[Yma23]

I kinda got this feeling to, but I think axing off settlements is the wrong approach. The problem with certain settlements is they're annoying to get to and there's no reason to go to them really unless you have business there or you want to see the shops.

This. I really like CragOneEye's idea, though I think his example is poor. A specialised weapon shop is nice, but people will visit it once ,get their purdy weapon, then not bother again. If we want to try to give people a reason to visit the different settlments at one point or another, then the answer is to add in specialised services.

For example, whilst I personaly love the fact that most major settlments have a speedy (Seriously, Best. Idea. Ever.) I think the fact that Bendir's Dale/whaftown is no longer the Must Go To Place to ge a speedy is a reason the former at least is a little less active.

Activity tends to bring in activity. If Person A, B, and C is in Guldorand, percons, E, F, and G. are more likely to come. These sort of things often snowball.

[Tyrantos]

I have a dream about a Dungeon which just takes place entirely within the delusional mind of a Gnome Illusionist whom have trapped himself inside of a statue.

[JediMindTrix]

Why hasn't anyone made a dirty joke yet?

I'm disappointed.

[CragOrion]

How strange is it that there is an issue that we all seem to be in agreement on?

I really do think it could do some good to consolidate settlements. Right off hand, I'd say having some kind of disaster hit crows nest and then have all of that move to Wharftown could be neat.

Some settlements might be helped by just helping transportation to them be a little easier, like possibly making some kind of 2-way transit between Brog and Bendir, or adding guldorand to the list of destinations for Cpt. Laurick.

I know this will probably get alot of resistance from people, but I actually think that Wharftown is a redundant settlement and we could do without it. Getting rid of it I think would give a noticeable bump to Cordor and Guldorand.

[Scurvy Cur]

Ew, no. If we're going to reduce areas, don't reduce the interesting ones with no settlement system ties; kill the ones that are race-specific and governed by the mechanic. Wharftown acquiring the Crow's nest is far less desirable than, say... the Mythal exploding and scattering the remnants of Myon into Brog.

[The GrumpyCat]

I entirely agree with Scurvy. Also - if we must get rid o fa human settlment it really needs to be Guldorand - it is by far the least used settlment.

[Cortex]

I entirely agree with Scurvy. Also - if we must get rid o fa human settlment it really needs to be Guldorand - it is by far the least used settlment.

Removing Guldorand would make it so the only (surface) multi-race settlements are Wharftown and Cordor, both of which are very close to each other. While Guldorand is low population, it's multiracial and serves a good isolationist purpose.

And before anyone claims or thinks(because that's literally what people are doing on the forums nowadays, "assuming" and "claiming") that I say this because I play there, I haven't had a character in Guldorand for years.

[The GrumpyCat]

I said 'If we must'. I actually agree with you there Cortex, and I can't say I'm in favour of removing such settlments at all.