[Intelli]

Hey everyone!

We would like to gauge your opinion on the following topic: Realm names. Currently, we have the following:

• Realms (land)
• Parties (groups)

What we're proposing is to rename "parties" to "realms". However, if do this, we need a new name for the current units of land, such as plots. Another option is to keep "realms" named as, well, "realms", and instead, have a new name, such as "guilds" or "countries" for the party system.

As implied, the current "party" system will be revamped to allow for moreso player organizations, and will have more features than the current limited ability to only chat with other users of the party. However, this topic is NOT regarding that.

Please vote regarding what you would like to see used for the names of realms/parties.

Thanks!

[Kress_91]

Any chance of a primary city warp?

[mtndewzane]

Any chance of a primary city warp?

This would be nice.

[aguy130]

I liked how in 2.0 it was realms for land and realms for chat. Tbh 2.0 totally upstaged 3.0 in my opinion.

[Cogohst]

I liked how in 2.0 it was realms for land and realms for chat. Tbh 2.0 totally upstaged 3.0 in my opinion.

I entirely agree.

[Intelli]

I liked how in 2.0 it was realms for land and realms for chat. Tbh 2.0 totally upstaged 3.0 in my opinion.

Nope

• Half the world was private, you couldn't explore anywhere.
• You could only be a member of one realm. No teaming up with other groups
• If you left you realm, even for a moment, to join someone else realm to help with something, unless you had other realm leaders, you would lose you entire realm size.
• Realms were dynamic, and you couldn't pick where they expanded.
• Realm expansion was exponential. Once you realm was larger, it was extremely hard to increase the size. The new system is linear.

Must I go on? That's not even touching on the bugs, but just base flaws with the old system.

[Kress_91]

I liked how in 2.0 it was realms for land and realms for chat. Tbh 2.0 totally upstaged 3.0 in my opinion.

I entirely agree.

Totally right.

• Use the same system as 2, but with the ability to enter realms.
• Being a member of only one realm added a more "community" feel to it. Nothing has improved on the community side, and there's still little reason to work in larger groups.
• Use 2.0, but with a required second-in-command player.
• A system like this would work fine with 2.0's ideals.
• Why should things get easier? If anything, the stronger you get, the slower you should grow. Leveling up doesn't get easier in most games.

Just my thought :3

[connorartman97]

I liked how in 2.0 it was realms for land and realms for chat. Tbh 2.0 totally upstaged 3.0 in my opinion.

I entirely agree.

Totally right.

• Use the same system as 2, but with the ability to enter realms.
• Being a member of only one realm added a more "community" feel to it. Nothing has improved on the community side, and there's still little reason to work in larger groups.
• Use 2.0, but with a required second-in-command player.
• A system like this would work fine with 2.0's ideals.
• Why should things get easier? If anything, the stronger you get, the slower you should grow. Leveling up doesn't get easier in most games.

Yes, I agree. Also, I remember having much more fun on the 2.0 system, but 3.0 adds a much more commercial feel to it

[Kress_91]

In my opinion, an economic system would work fine in 2.0, it's just then we didn't have the means of doing so. Now, we could run the 2.0 system in all its glory, with the bonuses of realm credits (and pvp? :3).

[Cheez99]

Eh, I like 3.0 better. With 2.0, I usually found myself building just for the sake of expanding the realm, or having to put a project off simply because it wouldn't fit inside the realm borders. By buying realms, we can effectively have colonies as well as not worrying about when the realm will expand again.