PvE Map Poll

[Aypop]

I agree with what others have said about need for more portals if we're going with the current trend of larger maps (8k x 8k). They could be semisemicardinal directions like NWW or SSE, making 16 portals. 

 

I think that would definitely help with coordinating special events like arena and spleef tournaments, as well as building rail and other infrastructure in and outside city limits. A NetherCARBON or NetherCARTS system under this would also be interesting. 

[WaterSlide]

I'm always amazed at the effort put into PVE maps for the past few revs. The one thing I'd like to see more are wide (20-40 wide) rivers to divide areas and mountain ranges that aren't just blobs of mountains, but more like something you'd see near a fault line. The world painted stuff isn't always so awesome, but at least it offers challenges. The one last thing that I'm seeing mentioned by a few players is the "closeness" factor which PVE is in danger of losing. Stuff is just too far apart and there's no real benefit to having huge blank areas. Also, rail networks tend to fall apart when the workers get exhausted over the course of a rev or two. Just some thoughts. I'm sure we'll be having loads of fun. 

[saberfysh]

I too, vote for vanilla terrain with more hostile, interesting environments past a certain point. This was the hallmark of Rev8 and Rev10. People would build villages along giant rivers or unique places up in the mountains with wildly varying terrain in these farlands.

 

I've never been a fan of large maps because logisitcally it hampers both simple rail and road construction that would traditionally foster community and relationships between small cities on PVE. On maps smaller than 5000 x 5000, cities, landmarks, players and fellow neighbours no longer feel "too far away" to reach, even for the average newcomer at spawn. Currently, it takes roughly 45 cooked steak worth of food to go from one edge to the other by foot. Non-CARBON small towns and hamlets rely heavily on horses, nether portals and nether roads to travel the 8k x 8k map within a reasonable amount of time. I don't know how many people actually do it this way (or if they travel much at all), but it bears pointing out. Big maps tend to favour big, existing cities that will dig the 3500+ block rail line, while small maps are more accessible to new players and smaller cities. Whatever sort of server culture the admins intend to have here will be influenced by the map size.

 

Fortunately, there are enough players here whose building ability has matured enough that we can mount impressive feats to overcome distance, whether it be DEEPS, CARTS, CARBON, world loops, or independent world projects like noRTh. Perhaps larger maps are a sign that we as players have matured with the game and can take on something bigger. Still, I feel there's very little opportunity for players outside of portal towns and major roads/railways to connect with the rest of us in a practical way, unless we proffer CARBON building and wiring services.

 

However, I do acknowledge that large maps are a popular shift from previous revs, and since we have proven that we have sufficient server power (250 slots without crashing!) to provide something of such grand scale, it's a great way to stand out as a server. Maps like these effectively eliminate most border disputes and the need for hasty map resets, reducing workload on the staff. We never run out of space and complaints are reduced. So, if we're going big, I'd say we make it interesting; we have a LOT of space on an 8k x 8k map after all. Let them taste every biome. Throw a volcano somewhere. Make a tiny oasis in what would be a very dry desert. Surprise people with a frosty tundra and let people truly feel a sense of scale, journeying to the frozen lands. Entice people to go far by putting nether quartz and glowstone there. Make it fun for old and new players alike to go really far out and enjoy every corner they visit. That would completely justify a large map.

Edited January 6, 2015 by saberfysh

[WyndySascha]

The reasons for having portals at points of cardinality are straightforward.  However: does anyone else think it'd be a good idea to have portals pseudo-randomly scattered across the map, while retaining a rough equi-distance from each other?  City location and connecting infrastructure always seems to me to be a fairly predictable thing, perhaps a bit of uncertainty and chance exploration and organic spread would be interesting for the new Rev.

 

Perhaps, if the map ends-up being several moderately-sized biomes of different types, each biome could have it's own portal somewhere around its central point?

[archelon2001]

I agree with saber for the most part. I'd just like to add that whatever map size ends up being used should have every type of biome if possible, and that the rev's length should correlate with the map size. In other words a small map would only last 3-4 months while a big map would possibly last much longer, 6-7 months. The problem with big maps is that it takes a while to build infrastructure, which isn't even really a problem. Players are more than capable of building infrastructure at that scale, but it takes more time.

 

TL;DR a rev's length should correlate with the size of the map.

[S_W]

I voted 6k by 6k but from looking at the older rev maps, the smaller revs look way more fun and interesting. The bigger they get the less interesting they seem. Everything is just too spread out.

 

100% this.  Everything in the current map is just too spread out IMO.  Cities aren't working together as much, there is a crazy amount of open land, public transportation is difficult to build, and the map in general is just hard to explore.  Hell, only one of the special spawners has been found this rev. 

 

I'm personally not a big fan of more portals since we'd just have a bunch of portals sitting around without much development by them.  Take for example the West portal which has very little development by it.  It seems that many cities would much rather build by other larger cities than being off on their own at a portal, as evidenced by the Northwest this rev and Southeast last rev.  

[Narissis]

Well, it was bound to happen: a post that would finally prompt me to make a forum account to respond. :P

 

Here are my thoughts on the map size discussion:

 

I think the ideal map size depends on the type of terrain generation. Vanilla Minecraft biomes and terrain work best for smaller maps, but become increasingly staid and repetitive as map size increases.

 

There are a lot of words being thrown about regarding maps being 'too big' leading to things being too spread-out, but my take on it is that the bigger the map, the more ocean there should be. That limits the amount of actual real estate, so builds don't get as spread-out as they would if the world was mostly dry land. And it comes with the perk of the world having a more immersive, realistic feel.

 

What I would love to see more than anything else is a combination of a few of the ideas already presented in this thread. My ideal map would be something like this:

• 8k x 8k with oceans at all borders and terrain laid out in "continents". Could be one huge island or several landmasses. If possible, have the edges wrap so that 'sailing off' into the infinite ocean would see you re-emerge at the other side of the map.
• Realistic World Generation.
• Reduced plumping around spawn; increased plumping beneath more remote regions.
• Land further from spawn becomes more "extreme".
• Equatorial layout with a distinctive warm "equator" (deserts/jungles/mesas) flanked by "temperate" regions (forests/swamps/hills) giving way to remote subarctic (taiga/extreme hills) and finally, assuming 1.8 world features, a tundra of ice spikes biomes at the furthest reaches.

I think an 8k map is a good size, but not if it's mostly land. Such a map should be taken as an opportunity to build realistic continents.

 

I do think large biomes are a good idea, but would be better with realistic world generation that provides natural transitions between them instead of a map that looks like a patchwork quilt.

Edited January 8, 2015 by Narissis

[kb2zuz]

Every map has it's own advantages disadvantages. That said, my favorite has been Rev 11's terrain. It also had the right mix of ocean area that was close enough to spawn. It had a lot of surprises (those mountain forests!) and such, and the walled mountains along the edge seemed right. I'm certain that took tons of work to make, and on larger maps it would be even more difficult. Perhaps a map could be generated and interested parties could be given a section to terraform, then the pieces put back together.

If maps are going to be as large as the current, I feel more portals would be highly advantageous. If the map is going to start at 4k or 5k and later expand to 6k or 8k, perhaps have additional areas for portals in the expanded area. Smaller maps keep things interesting partly because you can get around and see them. if an area is a 20 minutes from any portal, I'm probably going to miss out.

[Difficult1]

I would really like to see a map with extra amplified terrain to make areas like this:

• Mountainous area with a volcano or two as the centerpiece (hard to scale, but awesome community road/bridge building ops)
• Large ocean with detailed ocean floor (cliffs, mountains, valleys, coral reef with guardian "fun"geon as the center piece)
• Vast flat valleys with overlooking mountain ranges
• Large jungle for exploring 
• Large Forest areas dotted around the map
• Don't forget spooky dark oak forests
• Huge underground caverns like the ones in rev11 to make underground a land in itself
• Large rivers for towns to spring up along and to feed water from oceans to the flatland valleys.

 

The idea behind what i came up with is for both amazing adventures and exploring, to amazing cities built on cliffsides or in awesome terrain that would take a tenacious player to devise. Also, what brings in players and keeps them like an amazing map with expanding opportunities around every corner.

 

Also repetitive land is boring.

 

 

EX: http://24.media.tumblr.com/dfa8962514c1bad5726963ab9e35f842/tumblr_mtikjcOgtI1rm7is2o2_1280.png

      http://s72.photobucket.com/user/Rahzahm/media/spidercave-2.jpg.html

      http://static.planetminecraft.com/files/resource_media/screenshot/1427/mount2-537816612.jpg

      http://i.imgur.com/CC001.jpg

Edited February 1, 2015 by Difficult1

[tobylane]

Difficult we've tried most of those in the past and they didn't work so well. Everyone was afraid (iiuc) of messing with the volcano. Ocean floors and custom trees have been thought to not be worth the effort. The flat valleys allow the cities to spread very fast, then they get squashed against the hillside - see Bromgoth. Large jungles, while my favourite, are generally disliked. The huge caverns I was aware of were part of the best boat ride I've ever had in Minecraft, but it was extremely rarely visited. In a way big valleys and jungles are repetitive land. However the new biomes and variants on them would be worth trying, as well as your dark oak forest idea. Rivers seem to get in the way of cities more than we predict, what if the valleys had shallow rivers that were easier to move?

[Difficult1]

Tobylane ill go over some things you said one by one.

 

1. In the past i have seen towns in valleys and never once have i seen someone building a city to just be like, "oh no a mountain, better stop." City building is supposed to be a challenge and is supposed to overcome obstacles. Where is the fun in flat cities? (also the valleys i was thinking of would be massive more like canyons) 

 

2. The large caves in rev11 where visited all the time, there where multiple cities and active members who lived and worked in them. Myself included.

 

3. When it comes to rivers, cities normally look to build near them/over them. I could easily say that with the manpower even a small city has, moving a river isn't difficult. Most cities love having rivers through them, for docks or bridge projects. Most mayors wouldn't be burdened by a river, they would just make bridges and make it a part of their town. 

 

Now of course for the volcano and jungle thing, i agree, but that was just a spitball idea, but i like mountainous areas for people to explore with said mountains being on the far reaches of the map. Hopefully also making large cities stay closer to the middle of the map in the flatlands.

Edited February 2, 2015 by Difficult1

[Narissis]

I don't know who these people are who were afraid of building around a volcano. I'd build the fuck out of a volcano mountain. Awesome forges that redirect lava into huge furnaces, bridges soaring above the flows.... hnnngh.

[Difficult1]

I don't know who these people are who were afraid of building around a volcano. I'd build the fuck out of a volcano mountain. Awesome forges that redirect lava into huge furnaces, bridges soaring above the flows.... hnnngh.

 

This guy. This fucking guy.

 

All hail this guy

[tobylane]

One town, called Anvar, was built on the revision 8 volcano. http://redditpublic.com/carto/pve/p08/carto/index.html#/-2425/64/-188/-3/0/0 I visited it at the time, and while it was epic it was very much like the nether.

 

Anvar appears to be Verros's solo work. I know we have new people and old people with new ideas, it's hardly a poor use of space anyway.

[Difficult1]

One town, called Anvar, was built on the revision 8 volcano. http://redditpublic.com/carto/pve/p08/carto/index.html#/-2425/64/-188/-3/0/0 I visited it at the time, and while it was epic it was very much like the nether.

 

Anvar appears to be Verros's solo work. I know we have new people and old people with new ideas, it's hardly a poor use of space anyway.

 

that volcano was a bit extreme. if one where to be put in the map, it defiantly shouldn't be made of netherrack entirely