Multi-tier FTP (Short Distance FTP)


  • Baron

    This post is part of a series related to Fast-Travel-Points (FTP) - [2/2] | The other discussion can be found here.


    This is to discuss the possibility of a multi-tier FTP system. In the system FTP points classified as something like "Local" and "International" where local routes connect to a single near-by realm and international routes are like how we had them previously, spanning large oceans and going really long distances. The two tiers of FTP would have different requirements and be marked as such at the locations.

    • Do you like this idea?
    • What should the requirements for a local FTP be?
    • How should it be implemented?
    • Would boats/caravans need to be the same size as regular FTP or would they be smaller as they're "local"?
    • Other things I can't think of

    --

    Discussion resolved here


  • Baron

    I like this idea. I think it fits better than the large scale FTP tbh. The Silk Road wasnt China trading directly with Europeans after all. It was a network of every stop along the way. (Not saying long distance ocean travel doesnt have a spot though.)

    Requirements for local FTP could be

    1. have a neighbor.
    2. Be a... Viscount? (Would give Viscount an actual benefit)
    3. have built up infrastructure to support the FTP (same as normal/old FTP I'd say.)

  • Count

    Local should be easier to get, but limited.

    I would say for local, you still need some type of settlement, so 15 buildings? (half the old req for ftp)
    A dock with at least one [edit: two ships, one for each ftp], (maybe a minimum length req of like 15 blocks, pulling that number out of my ass)
    They can connect to the nearest TWO ftp neighbors.

    Two because then you can ship-hop between realms by taking the local boats.

    For the larger global Ports, I say we use a lot from the old reqs.
    You need a decorated netherline
    a settlement of at least 30 buildings
    100 points of ships (or 120 points of caravan)

    What I would like to get rid of from the old system, is the requirement of 2 boats built by foreign realms. You could still do it if you wished. But I never saw a reason that had to be a requirement. I just don't want someones progress getting a ftp limited by other people. It should be doable by yourself/your realm.

    I would also still like to see ftp attached to realm size rather than what an individual player has made (like rank advancement) people can work together in a realm towards it.


  • Baron

    @Alric I really like that suggestion. Those seem like fair values, I agree with your suggestion about the foreign boat requirements. While I understood the reason for it (trying to encourage inter-realm building) it did hinder people like crazy when someone just didn't come build their boat for whatever reason.


  • Baron

    Another thing that was discussed was that the actual FTP point would be placed elsewhere away from the actual boat/caravan so that the act of using FTP doesn't result in your horse forcing itself upon a sail and dying. I was thinking it would just be an area that has a clear landing area with all available FTP points out and easily readable. This will also aid in navigation between points.


  • Count

    @Mimo I like the necessity of having to go from boat to boat so maybe we just move the point to the dock in front of the boat so you don't have those issues


  • Baron

    @Alric Yeah thats what I was thinking, I just didn't describe it well. The idea being to remove the hassle of all those quirks we've experienced with having them actually placed on the boats.


  • Baron

    I think local FTP should max out at 3 rather than two because triangulation is usually a good way to get around most efficiently.

    Local FTP reqs imo would be:

    Independent Baron

    Dock structure sufficiently sized to support coastal trade vessels OR
    Campsite sufficiently sized to support a traveling caravan

    10 buildings to illustrate basic habitation

    A button on the dock for transport as has been suggested to avoid horse issues

    Global FTP reqs would be:

    Viscount reqs

    A dock structure sufficiently sized to support deepwater oceangoing vessels OR
    A large market and campsite to support several merchant trains

    As an aside I think those that achieve Global FTP ability should also get the option to add one or two more local routes if they see fit


  • Count

    @Tsal how would the 3rd route work for coastal vessels?

    I had imagined 2, for each direction down the coast, to the nearest ftp ports


  • Baron

    @Alric

    If you wanted three coastal routes in Ornthas you could have a link to Kisaevin and Obrexia and Sucia too if you felt like it

    You could also have the two coastal routes and then a caravan route to Ozerit potentially. There are not only two directions for local travel. It's also less limiting if a neighbor further out wants to link to you and you've already got two routes in place. Are they supposed to just stay isolated and wait on you to get Global FTP reqs? 3 is a solid number and seemed to work well for my mockup. A lot of realms may only want two and some only the one, I just don't want to back anyone into a corner or have unnecessarily inefficient FTP routes around the map.


  • Baron

    Just an aside, I'd like to not include any netherline stuff in ftp Reqs. I still think the nether system is largely not necessary and as stated before, no one seems to like building them or using them.


  • Count

    @Tsal
    I like the idea of a limit of 2 sea, but optionally, a 3rd for land.

    So I would connect to anaetyr or obrexia to the west, and kisaevin to the east. Sucia would connect to kisaevin and miktaban (if they get a harbor) and to move from ornthas to miktaban, I would have to travel through the port of kisaevin and sucia (like linirea to spawn through weed-viking land)

    When there's need, places like kisaevin also make a caravan to koh.
    Ideally, I'd like a larger port to support inland trade, but that could restrict some realms based on their neighbors, so it's not worth it.

    To move directly from ornthas to sucia, ONE of us would need the larger port for the distance, but can still dock at smaller ports


  • Baron

    @Alric

    Why though?
    There's no need to complicate it- you get three local routes. It shouldn't matter whether over land or sea. You can sail to Sucia with no trouble if that's what you choose as your third route- it's just a quick trip through a shallow sea. Kisaevin would be just as easily reached as Sucia.


  • Count

    @Tsal to me, the short, easier ftp should be restricted to the nearest port on either side.

    It just feels like it would take away some of the significance of having the large port varient. In the arcos sea, it takes away the ENTIRE point, since I don't think there is likely to be more than 3 harbors. (Only spawn and kyrin currently)


  • Baron

    One thing I would like to see is a clause added that would allow for an exception to be made either by a vote or by the infrastructure minister to allow for more then the max number of connections at a FTP point.

    Let me explain: Let's say Kisaevin, Sucia and Koh are all Regional Transport Hubs and they are all maxed out at the decided max for an RTH (for the sake of this example, lets say 3). Now that is all good and fine unless a new realm were to pop up in a location that that their only options for RTH connections are those three realms that are already maxed out. In this case I would like there to be a way for a special exception to be made so that the realm in question could get a least one connection to one of those maxed out hubs if they're their only option. So that they're not SOL based on the viable connections around them being maxed out.

    I think that made sense? If it doesn't yell at me to clarify. I don't see it really being an issue but it would suck if you met the requirements for a FTP hub only to not be able to use it because all the connections around you were already maxed out.


  • Baron

    Things I like:

    • Port town of X buildings to unlock, low entry reqs
    • Minimum, boat per boat route, caravan per land route.
    • Tiering the number of total routes on town size and economic capacity, say a 15 building port gets you 2 routes, 50 for 3, or whatever.
    • Ftp attached to 'realm-size' style reqs not individual
    • Not killing horses

    Things I'm unsure on:

    • Not fudging routes if we can help it. If you don't have a viable connection point, create one. For example, Helios doesn't really have any coastal neighbors right now. (I'm really back and forth on this.)

    • How to deal with 'saturated ports' with new realms wanting connections (assuming nearest neighbor connection)

    • Whether nearest neighbors is the best way to limit it, perhaps distance?

    • Really long coastal routes via "nearest ftp capable harbor"

    • How many tiers are appropriate? I've seen two suggested above but I think 3 might also be good. (Coastal, Ocean, Global)

    Things I dislike:

    • Land vs sea route restrictions.
    • Multiple FTP landing per realm. ( I think it should be limited to 1 or 2 at most, to encourage folks to walk around developed areas instead of teleport through them)
    • Anything referencing nether lines
    • Foreign reqs

  • Count

    @Aron
    To clarify, in my model, the larger port had unlimited ftp connections, and the small port was just restricted to 2 sea + 1 land.

    The nearest neighbor was so we would have an organic ftp network, rather than several small networks that aren't connected. It would make the occasional long route though.

    For multiple ports In one realm, those are for the really big realms, like what linirea was, which is why it's locked behind the higher reqs.

    I understand the desire to take overland roads, but on aldemeria, where only one port was allowed, if I wanted to travel from vass (west side) to ravelstoke (east side) I used the nether or occasionally, flew. I still wasn't using the roads, so I see no reason to disallow a second port at the higher levels we will see in a year or so.


  • Baron

    I like the idea of two types of FTP


  • Duke

    Since I have been asked a few times about my position on this.

    I am not against the tiered fast travel.

    I am against the low requirements. I feel the current requirements especially for the RTH is far too low. I think that this is balanced around an individuals work not a realms, and even then it seems like a trivial amount barely above just handing out a FTP for starting a realm.

    Personally I would rather see the RTH locked behind a Viscounty worth of builds and the ITH behind an equally expanded realm size.


Log in to reply
 

11
Online

228
Users

1.1k
Topics

5.1k
Posts