| The Mercurian Empire http://hermertia.com/ |
|
| Fast Travel Discussion - Review of Current Regulations http://hermertia.com/viewtopic.php?f=62&t=1606 |
Page 1 of 6 |
| Author: | Septimus [ January 26th, 2017, 9:03 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Fast Travel Discussion - Review of Current Regulations |
Greetings friends, As part of my remit as Minister for Surveyors and Civil Engineers, I would like to open a discussion regarding our Maritime Travel laws as a kind of small review. What works? What doesnt? Could we change it for the better? With this in mind I would like to propose an addition to the existing rules to accommodate travel via river, where the river joins an inland sea to a larger ocean. This measure would accomplish 2 things:
Historically, travel by river differed from oceanic travel in two main ways:
I’m interested to hear the thoughts of the rest of the community regarding our current rules as well as opinions on travel via river. |
|
| Author: | Cerdic Accynnafon [ January 26th, 2017, 9:11 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Fast Travel Discussion - Review of Current Regulations |
I fully support this measure. I do believe that the size of the sea that can be connected to should have a minimum requirement. Perhaps an inland sea no smaller than the Casadian Sea - so Casadian sea "sized" and larger? Wuth regard to river travel, I'd like to see other "flavor" buildings required. Perhaps signs of river industry (water mills, a small shipbuilder, river based trade, etc)? We should also discuss how fast travel points would work intra-realm. For example, I intend on expanding to the Sea of Reflection over time, and would like a fast travel point in the east. How would that work between Acholm and this future travel point? One of the proposals that Septimus, myself, and Nicholas discussed was the requirement for an actual canal capable of supporting boats, in the case where you want your fast travel points on two different seas to connect. Some other requirements may make sense as well. |
|
| Author: | Petra Ravnikaar [ January 27th, 2017, 12:05 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Fast Travel Discussion - Review of Current Regulations |
Things i don't like: - max length restriction. - compulsory buildings. - having an actual full proper canal/river Reducing creativity options is something I'll speak out against. The river can be made to look good around the area you're building In but I don't like the idea of tonnes of non seen or non fun work that doesn't serve a purpose. That the river is there is enough for me. Keeping the spirit of the original bill in mind and why we made it a thing. Like the other ideas though for the most part. |
|
| Author: | Cerdic Accynnafon [ January 27th, 2017, 12:30 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Fast Travel Discussion - Review of Current Regulations |
You are not going to have super long boats going down a river. It simply doesn't make sense. The idea I do believe is that these are the requirements for boats you need to act as a river fast travel point - if you want to connect to connect to other points on the same sea, you'd need to fulfill the normal requirements as well. Are you saying that if someone wants a fast travel point on either side of their realm, that they don't need to do anything and can just say a river connects them? Where do we draw the line? I feel having to build a canal if you want to connect two opposite sides of the same realm should have some really hard work to go into it, so we don't end up with some large kingdom just able to connect cause "Amidst says there are rivers here." |
|
| Author: | Petra Ravnikaar [ January 27th, 2017, 2:03 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Fast Travel Discussion - Review of Current Regulations |
Having a river between them on amidst is in my eyes enough, as long as there are the requisite buildings in place, and appropriate level of work and effort is in made at the ports as we intended with the original bill. The requirements are there to make sure to give a significantly boosted improvement to player movement, and to make our world more lore rich with additional settlements and kick ass looking harbours and such. |
|
| Author: | Joren [ January 27th, 2017, 6:00 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Fast Travel Discussion - Review of Current Regulations |
Samyrrah Almandine wrote: Having a river between them on amidst is in my eyes enough, as long as there are the requisite buildings in place, and appropriate level of work and effort is in made at the ports as we intended with the original bill. The requirements are there to make sure to give a significantly boosted improvement to player movement, and to make our world more lore rich with additional settlements and kick ass looking harbours and such. I think at the very least it would be appropriate to implement World paint to create a real river to the proposed harbor city in question. This is something that we had talked about doing a very long time ago (with mountains and rivers and such). Not sure if we ever voted on a bill legalizing it or not. |
|
| Author: | Cerdic Accynnafon [ January 27th, 2017, 6:04 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Fast Travel Discussion - Review of Current Regulations |
I don't support wold painting rivers in to every location. We discussed something different on discord today. Summary: Connections between large oceans could be worldedited to create navigable canals/water systems. This would include the Minvervan, Valyrian, Khabranth, Imperial, and possibly the Ivangetop and the Isilian seas. River fast travel would occur between a major ocean (those listed above) and a minor sea, like the Sea of Reflection or the Casadian Sea. You would need a large amount of smaller ships, and signs of river based industry. |
|
| Author: | Cerdic Accynnafon [ February 7th, 2017, 11:38 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Fast Travel Discussion - Review of Current Regulations |
Can we get some more input on this? Summary of things discussed so far in discord: * Creation of a new set of requirements for situations that would involve river travel. Think Acholm to Gallen, Erikos to Roseaire, etc. * Worldpainting/editing canals between the major seas. * Discussing requirements for when a realm has two fast travel points 9 on separate bodies of water) and they could conceivably travel across their realm. Make them build a canal, or requirements for making both port towns super massive/tons of boats instead? |
|
| Author: | Arcel [ February 8th, 2017, 12:38 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Fast Travel Discussion - Review of Current Regulations |
I am not a fan of one realm having two connected fsst travel points. I think it would be a bit too OP. |
|
| Author: | Cerdic Accynnafon [ February 8th, 2017, 2:24 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Fast Travel Discussion - Review of Current Regulations |
Cerydon wrote: I am not a fan of one realm having two connected fsst travel points. I think it would be a bit too OP. That is a concern of mine as well. I'd like to find a way to make it not OP, in terms of decreasing the payoff by increasing the input needed to teach such a level. My initial proposal ( Septimus I believe agreed initially) was to have the requirement set at physically building a canal. Sam's alternative was guided by not making people build stuff in the middle of nowhere that no one would see. He has a good point here. He suggested instead that the normal requirements be increased several times over. I'd be in favor of this if the requirements indeed had a high bar to meet. My final point on this, as the other two don't really deal with how OP it is, well, neither does this, but it is my final point nonetheless, is in the form of a question: What do we do in situations where a realm can cover the distance between two seas, and the second, non-main sea also has a realm on it? Examples: * Ostlond and Wysteria. If I spread to the Sea of Reflection someday ( as is my intent for future expansions), and built a fast travel point from there to get to Gallen (which would be totally legal under the current rules), what is preventing that point from connecting to Acholm in the spirit of the law? Gallen currently connects - why not this new point, and under what requirements? * A theoretical nation on the opposite side of the Casadian Sea to the Imperial Sea * The Pyrencian Sea of Ashes to the Valyrian Sea |
|
| Page 1 of 6 | All times are UTC [ DST ] |
| Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group https://www.phpbb.com/ |
|