Jump to content

SilkBD

solution Problems with PvE Changes, and a Proposed Solution

Recommended Posts

12 hours ago, SilkBD said:

2. Make the claim radius around 50% to 75% smaller than the size it is currently
3. Limit claims to 1 flag per island per player

 

The limit i can kinda agree on, though i would limit it at 2 person. And make the radius a bit bigger. Not smaller, you need to build a decent size of base, depending on what you want to do. And it's not because someone is solo that he can't build a base he wants. But the we need a restriction on the amount of claim flags ( and i own almost an entire island, and yes i've helped several people with land, claims, bears, resources etc ), but even then, i find we need a restriction.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
4 minutes ago, LoneXS said:

Just out of curiosity and this might be a tin foil hat thing entirely but can they actually limit claims? 

Since the stream and with the massive lack of feedback from the Devs I've started to wonder why they didn't limit claims right from the get go. Its been kinda bugging me and at first I kinda settled on it being an over site and it just might be, but could there be more to it that we're just not being made aware of.

Is it out of the realm of possibility that limiting claims per player/company just isn't something that can be coded in a short period of time with breaking things?

Gonna have to start making appearances on the official discord if thats where most of the QA stuff is happening I guess...

 

They didnt so they could add the leaderboard in. Its not a issue on the coding side.

 

Edited by Harryplopper
Dbl post

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, LoneXS said:

Just out of curiosity and this might be a tin foil hat thing entirely but can they actually limit claims? 

 

They're doing it on pvp.

Quote

There will be a hard limit on the total number of claim flags.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Harryplopper said:

They didnt so they could add the leaderboard in. Its not a issue on the coding side.

I did wonder that as well but I kinda settled on the leader boards coming after the claim flags in terms on development. Again I'm likely to be completely wrong I'm just struggling with some of the actions of Grapeshot up to this point. Part of me wants to believe there is more to it than being a little shortsighted I guess.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
10 minutes ago, Winter Thorne said:

They're doing it on pvp.

 

Yup but they are limiting it to one per island instead of player/company. From a thematic standpoint I kinda see what they are trying to do in PVP but it seems such a drastic change where as adding cap seems so much simpler.

Edited by LoneXS

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What if PvE just got the exact same thing as PvP is getting with a couple tweaks?

Still 1 claim that encompasses the entire island that when active turns the island into a settlement with an upkeep, same as they are proposing for PvP.  Since SO MANY people will be up in arms about the owner having the ability to destroy their stuff, adjust it that the owner can only DESTROY (not loot, even backpacks) a companies stuff if there is a majority vote from all other members of the island with the owner having a larger voting share.

Now, here is the kicker that will prevent any random wanna-be from taking up that claim flag ... instead of the owner having to set-up raid times and protect his tenants from other pirate raids and wars.  Like in Conan Exiles the owner is responsible for setting up a defense against a raid of SotD crew members that have issues with the living.  Periodically, after so many upkeeps are paid or failed the SotD will rise up en-mass and attempt to expel the living from their island.  They will be armed with archers, gunners, explosives, and anything else that may be needed to make it a decent challenge for players.

The tenants will all see and know when a raid is likely to happen so that they can attempt to schedule being online during the raid and help with tames or swords to repel the Damned Crew till another day.  If the tenants are unhappy with the landowner's defense, they can choose to op-out of the taxes or pay towards the upkeep but the bank will have a display showing all individuals that are contributing that anyone can see.  So if you decide to be greedy and opt-out hoping everyone else will pick up the slack, all other residents will be able to see and a vote can be called to remove you from the island.

I think this would actually pretty damn fun to see be put into place ... and it would make sense with the game Lore for the Damned Crew to want to seek revenge both out at sea and on the land besides for just being spawning for treasure hunts.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, LoneXS said:

Yup but they are limiting it to one per island instead of player/company. From a thematic standpoint I kinda see what they are trying to do in PVP but it seems such a drastic change where as adding cap seems so much simpler.

Yeah, I thought you were just wondering if maybe it wasn't possible technically for some reason.  The pvp change proves it is.

I kind of see where they're going with it in pvp..introducing settlements, keeping the main theme about conquering land, etc.  For pve, I think they just need to use the limits part.

14 minutes ago, CoopedUp said:

What if PvE just got the exact same thing as PvP is getting with a couple tweaks?

There's a lot about the pvp changes that I wouldn't like to see in pve.  For one thing, anything having to do with tenants sounds bad to me.  If you let people claim whole islands, that's a whole bunch of people shut out of ever having their own land and just having to deal with being a tenant.  So many people are against that, and it discourages new players. 

The new ideas about defending against some sort of external force are interesting though, but that seems like a whole unrelated topic.  But since you were talking about voting on things anyway, why have a landlord and not an elected governor?  Then it wouldn't depend on who grabbed land, everybody still gets to own their own claims, and you get a higher level of organization for the players to use - government.  The whole claim issue could be worked out right away, just by sensible limits, and the rest of it could be pushed out later as part of the overall strategy for pve gameplay.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
24 minutes ago, Winter Thorne said:

But since you were talking about voting on things anyway, why have a landlord and not an elected governor?  Then it wouldn't depend on who grabbed land, everybody still gets to own their own claims, and you get a higher level of organization for the players to use - government.  The whole claim issue could be worked out right away, just by sensible limits, and the rest of it could be pushed out later as part of the overall strategy for pve gameplay.

But the problem is that in PvE if everyone owns their own stake of land and no one can touch them, how do you evict someone that is completely toxic or griefing other islanders?  Or someone that comes along and places one of their spare claims right on the only gem source in 3 sectors and completely walling it off or building over it?

The idea of a landowner/governor having the ability to call votes to have that griefer removed from the gem spot if everyone else on the island agrees is something that is needed, but if he can get evicted can you really say that the griefer truly owned that claim?

I think a LOT of people are just afraid of having someone build over top of them or caging them in and preventing them from expanding after they've settled down with just a simple hut.  Which if that happens with a landowner/governor I think it could be solved diplomatically without the need for more in-game controls, but if I'm wrong then perhaps a compromise would be that the landowner can grant "parcels".  Where you are free to build in your "parcel" and any other free spot on the island, but can not build in another tenants "parcel".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, CoopedUp said:

But the problem is that in PvE if everyone owns their own stake of land and no one can touch them, how do you evict someone that is completely toxic or griefing other islanders?  Or someone that comes along and places one of their spare claims right on the only gem source in 3 sectors and completely walling it off or building over it?

The idea of a landowner/governor having the ability to call votes to have that griefer removed from the gem spot if everyone else on the island agrees is something that is needed, but if he can get evicted can you really say that the griefer truly owned that claim?

I think a LOT of people are just afraid of having someone build over top of them or caging them in and preventing them from expanding after they've settled down with just a simple hut.  Which if that happens with a landowner/governor I think it could be solved diplomatically without the need for more in-game controls, but if I'm wrong then perhaps a compromise would be that the landowner can grant "parcels".  Where you are free to build in your "parcel" and any other free spot on the island, but can not build in another tenants "parcel".

What if it's the landowner that's the toxic griefer?  The only requirement for being a landowner is that you get there first.  There's no test of social skills or compatibility for it.  At least if you do a governor, it's by election and people can try to fix a bad situation.    But that implies a group of equals, each owning land, voting for who's going to administer the next higher level of cooperation for a town or city, and there's some recourse if it turns out badly.     I'd be against even a town group being able to vote someone off the island, because I can see a situation where the group has a friend they'd like to get a claim there and gang up against an outsider to get rid of him for that.

So although electing the person in charge helps, that doesn't solve the toxic player issue entirely either.

The problem of toxic players is one that really needs a good CS team to solve.  And if it's a real griefer or toxic player issue, they already have rules about that and should take some action, although it may take a huge player outcry to get them to do that.  I guess we both know full well the toxic ones will be out there.  I just don't think having an elite class of ruling landowners based on who could grab the land first fixes that.

 

 

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
45 minutes ago, Winter Thorne said:

What if it's the landowner that's the toxic griefer?  The only requirement for being a landowner is that you get there first.  There's no test of social skills or compatibility for it.  At least if you do a governor, it's by election and people can try to fix a bad situation.

True, but that was why I suggested the ability to choose to Opt-Out of the tax collection and not fund the upkeep.  If enough of the tenants choose not to assist with the upkeep then eventually landowner wouldn't be able to keep up with it and would lose the rights to the land.  And if they are banded together, he can't vote to evict any of them since enough of the island's tenants would vote against it.

You are right though, there is always going to be toxic players and griefers.  And I agree that an extreme case should have an Admin involvement, but I also don't want to place everything on their shoulders too.  I'm just trying to offer some suggestions for a system that might allow the players to be able to moderate their own islands to a limited extent so they don't have to file an admin complaint every week.

The truth though is that no system is perfect, and you can't please everyone.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I want an island most players want an island I say give us the pvp 1 flag per island and limit the numbers as others have suggested.. I strongly feel limiting is the best solution as others do. The problem with renting is like myself most others wish for their own islands as well. It's just modern human nature to want their own things. I hate renting it sucks in real life and sucks in games I mean come on renting feels like shit compared to actually owning your own home and the same applies to islands in atlas.. Just saying.. On another note people will probably burn me for this but I'm gonna say it anyways I've actually been killing time with that conan game..  It's not a bad game to be honest and the building is alot like atlas actually.. It's weird.. Also I lvl up make new gear and actually feel like i'm playing an rpg with an awesome building system just like atlas and ark and my own army of pets and thralls?! Not shaby at all.. Don't know how many haters there are but I'm sure they're out here somewhere..  Anyways I noticed on their forums that their CMs and devs actually jump into forum topics and comment on how they are pleased with how people help each other or they jump in and address issues people are discussing.. Just pointing this out because I felt it refreshing to see a game devs forums being done right.. Busy or no those people are nice.. Now I know (lately) they have jumped in a few times here but it's very very very very very rare and it's nothing like how other devs seem to handle issues in their forums..  Here it's just crickets while people fume until the point of explosion..

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

 

23 hours ago, SilkBD said:

So I've identified some problems with the upcoming changes on the PvE side of things and I wanted to list them here simply and with clarity:

 

1. Because there are no claims, people can pillar off someone's base very easily, pillar off their entrances and pathways in and out as long as there's a patch of ground within a few meters away from their foundations.  And there's nothing they can do about it.

2. Because there are no claims, people can place pillars and ceilings around someone's boat in their own port, forever blocking their boat in and preventing them from using it.  And there's nothing they can do about it.

3. This already happens in Lawless zones (it happened to me today), and there's nothing that can be done to solve the problem.

4. People can put large tames in front of other companies' gates and doorways, blocking them in from using it.  They can use tames to block parts of their base as well... forever.  And there's nothing they can do about it.

5. With the new system, they can just slap down an auto-repair structure next to their griefing pillars, and keep it repaired... indefinitely for as long as they choose.  And there's nothing anyone can do about it.

 

So, this is a non-trivial problem with the PvE mode of the game, and has greater weight given that there are no active Admins managing each server for things like this.

 

I'm not going to post a bunch of problems without proposing a solution for consideration and nitpicking.

 

My proposed solution:

1. Allow claims on all islands including the current lawless

2. Make the claim radius around 50% to 75% smaller than the size it is currently

3. Limit claims to 1 flag per island per player

4. Allow ships to temporarily pass through other companies' structures and ships, as an explicit emergency toggle for 2 minutes on the ship's multi-use menu

5. Allow a company to eject other companies' tames from their claim that have been there for over a hour (or whatever arbitrary time is reasonable for balance reasons)

 

That's my proposal, feel free to poke holes in it, I'm only one perspective.

First i have to say i agree with you, except the number of claimflags. 1 Claimflag is not enough , but a hardcap would be the right way.

 

CURRENT PVE AUTO-DEMOLISH/REPAIR CONCEPT(FAIL)   / CURRENT CLAIMFLAG CONCEPT(FAIL)                                                                                        I dont know why the devs took this solution instead of other more pve friendly ones, makes us feel devs dont play pve. Punish pve players for griefers and forcing us to gather resources over and over againe, to prevent our bases from decaying, cant be the answer... Maybe this idea came from the same person, which had the briliant idea of making stone cost organic paste. Same frustrating like Jat, who was making jokes about adding a minigame to fire arrows...(this is not funny and most people hates those mini games).

The claiming system concept they have in pvp wont stay. This is so stupid and will cause to much trouble, players will never accept this. Allowing a Landlord demolish structures from other companies to all times.... its so stupid and make companys to not live on a landlord islands.... the struggle for all these items is to big and the risk to high to lose everything to a griefer /greedy landlord.

 

Solutions:

-Keep claimflags in pve limit them to  5-20(depends on amount of company member) per grid and 20 in total per company. Enemy structures. ships, animals or npcs, dont block claiming of an area. All enemy structures and animals on your claim are able to beeing demolished or taken over after 1 hour. Enemy claims cant beeing placed in a short distance to your claim, except you are in an alliance, than your claims can be next to each other.

-keep building everywhere with auto decay and demolish after  5hours, if not on your claim(dont forget we will have to build everywhere to kill animals and monsters)

-removing of water claims

-make ships not gettin damaged on water if they are in a distance to an island.

-unlimited amount of alliances in PVE

-give ships the ability to drive through other ships in pve.

Edited by Egon von Sturmberg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I like this thread so far, some very valid points and constructive criticism being posted here.

As I read about building empires and holding elections I had a thought on how everything might be tied together a bit better.

What if the game had factions implemented. A lot of other MMOs and other games have used the system to great effect and I think Atlas may be a perfect place for it.

When people create their characters they're prompted to choose a faction to join. There could be several different factions and each one could have their own unique structure and ship aesthetics, and you could even go so far as to give each faction their own benefits.

For example, you could have a faction described as warring nomads that get increased weapon damage and ship speed but increased structure cost and upkeep. A faction described as being great builders could get cheaper stone structures and upkeep but lower seafaring abilities. A neutral Merchant's Guild faction could have reduced upkeep and could build on any faction's land and set up player shops outside of Freeports but could never own their own land. The pirate faction could get higher gold gains, be better at ship to ship combat and sail faster but could only build in lawless areas.

The factions and pros/cons of each can be different, I'm just using those as examples. But several different factions could exist and islands could be claimed for that faction rather than individual companies within those factions.

Then we can have elections once a month to choose a governor. The original governor of the island would be whichever company put the claim down first, then the company can assign a duke/duchess for each island they own and only people living on the island for at least three weeks could vote in the next election. The governor would get the benefit of taxes but would be tasked with essentially being the admin of that island.

For PvP servers could do the same thing but if another faction takes control of the island the residents could choose to either assimilate into their faction or pack up and leave.

I would see that opening up a lot of trade to get different aesthetics for building parts, everyone would have a sense of belonging to something bigger than themselves while still being able to do their own thing or play solo if they wanted to. Large companies could build their empires, and small companies and solo players would have their places as well and the system would hopefully be able to manage itself.

It would also open up the door for a lot more types of content, and would give people a reason to have alt accounts so Grapeshot would benefit from the extra revenue in exchange for the amount of time and effort such a system would take to build.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, SilkBD said:

The problem with increasing the claim size is that it makes it exponentially harder to place a new claim in a spot that a smaller claim size would fit.  Smaller claim sizes means more people can claim and there are less no-man zones that can't fit a claim.

You are right. In that case leave same range  for flag as it is and have two flags per player. If player want to build something big in that case player must find another player with same vision.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, Robotukas said:

You are right. In that case leave same range  for flag as it is and have two flags per player. If player want to build something big in that case player must find another player with same vision.

again 2 isn’t enough as all that would happen is toxic players would place them in resource nodes and build on them blocking them

 

6 per company up to 10 players , 12 flags per company up to 25 players , 25 flags up to 50 player , 50 flags max over 50-100 players and addupkeep

the solution  cannot be any simpler , keep old system with the above changes 

room for everyone and resources can be protected as well , 

all the suggestion so far about governors and voting for this and that are rubbish 

 

simpler the system the better .

Edited by uli
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, uli said:

again 2 isn’t enough as all that would happen is toxic players would place them in resource nodes and build on them blocking them

 

6 per company up to 10 players , 12 flags per company up to 25 players , 25 flags up to 50 player , 50 flags max over 50-100 players and addupkeep

the solution  cannot be any simpler , keep old system with the above changes 

room for everyone and resources can be protected as well , 

all the suggestion so far about governors and voting for this and that are rubbish 

 

simpler the system the better .

10

Great solution! Player shops should also be able to open anywhere!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
about ships idea interesting, but too "a dangerous" for possible future detours game shows mechanics. On this issue can offer is: if on the ship there was nobody there for 3 days, then it starts VERY quickly sareti. If the ship is anchored at the island, then ..
Next about one flag per person per island with 50% efficiency: - on a flag base will not put (and the pen from the proxy to tamiki will not be included) - it can still be easily built around the perimeter - this is not a dant no protection of resources and approaches to them.
The author mentioned about admins on every server, which regulate his life. This is a good option, but instead of people far from the game, you can tie it to the game mechanics. All with the same gubernatori that will administer the life on the island. But in this case, a system of changing governors and protection from inadequate rulers is necessary. Protection can be in the form of a repair building, which provides a safe area, this area can be expanded by the construction of "small repair buildings".
Edited by Meercat

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, uli said:

again 2 isn’t enough as all that would happen is toxic players would place them in resource nodes and build on them blocking them

 

6 per company up to 10 players , 12 flags per company up to 25 players , 25 flags up to 50 player , 50 flags max over 50-100 players and addupkeep

the solution  cannot be any simpler , keep old system with the above changes 

room for everyone and resources can be protected as well , 

all the suggestion so far about governors and voting for this and that are rubbish 

 

simpler the system the better .

What are they going to do with resources? They will loose 2 flag for no reason. Don’t think that where is a lot toxic players in game. You give more flags to players more problems you will have with resources, foundation and so on.

and remember every player can have own company so in that case 10 flags per players. Unless I misunderstood your post. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
2 hours ago, Robotukas said:

What are they going to do with resources? They will loose 2 flag for no reason. Don’t think that where is a lot toxic players in game. You give more flags to players more problems you will have with resources, foundation and so on.

and remember every player can have own company so in that case 10 flags per players. Unless I misunderstood your post. 

10 per player ? where did u get that from ,? 6 flags for companys up to 10 players in size , 12 for companys of 10-25 players , and so on 

 

and u misunderstood if u only give players 2 flags first few place there flags and claim the coast areas , next few only areas left on the islands are further inland so they place their 2 flgs inland on top of resources  effectivly blocking them first scenario.

 

second scenario ,toxic players usually have more than 1 in their company so u go giving 2 flags per player say a 10 strong company has 20 flags to place , so the first 5 memebrs place flags over resources and build , the other 5 place their flags for their new base , normal players are starved of resources , u move to new island they remove their buildiongs blocking resources , 

 

flag claims have to be limited per company depending on member numbers

 

 

Edited by UDO

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So if I'm a solo player company I get 6 flags?  But if me and 9 of my friends want to play together we get...6 flags?  I'm not sure I understand how that would work out as fair since there's more of us we need more space for say a ship each, bear each.  When a single person company would not.  I think it the only fair way is to put a claim limit per paid account.  Yes the big companies would get more...but if you have 100 people...you kinda need more.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We have a company of 7 people and have 5 flags in tundra, all very much overlapping, so not even using the full amount of space 5 flags would have granted.  We have plenty of room for everyone to have whatever size house they want, we have about 8 ships total, dozens of tames of all sorts, and we still have plenty of space that is clear of building for gathering resources.  It is the perfect size for us.  We made a little dock town on ceilings and pillars, going out between the shore and our ship docks, where we have barns for animals, communal crafting stations, and storage.  The idea is that a company of 5-10 members won't need 5-10 times the amount of structures because they would be sharing a lot of stuff.  We don't each need our own tannery.  We enjoy sailing together.  We only need 2 shipyards and work on ship projects together, not each person having 2 shipyards.  I think the proposed limits are totally reasonable.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I understand what you are saying and you're not wrong. But then why would a solo person need the same amount of space as 7 people?  Maybe break it down a little further?  A company of 1-5 get 3 flags...6-10 get 6 flags...etc

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
44 minutes ago, Rainy said:

I understand what you are saying and you're not wrong. But then why would a solo person need the same amount of space as 7 people?  Maybe break it down a little further?  A company of 1-5 get 3 flags...6-10 get 6 flags...etc

 

We are a 3 man company with 3 flags and doing fine with enough space for resources and to build both base and shipyards. For a few weeks we only had 1 flag and that was a bit tight especially with tames. However, I'm guessing solo/small companies with an ambition to build big would object - I am also guessing that is a rather common wish on PvE servers.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
11 hours ago, cloWandering said:

The idea is that a company of 5-10 members won't need 5-10 times the amount of structures because they would be sharing a lot of stuff.  We don't each need our own tannery.  We enjoy sailing together.  We only need 2 shipyards and work on ship projects together, not each person having 2 shipyards. 

^^ YES!! ^^

The land-grab mentality would become irrelevant if the game didn't force the "need" for permanent land bases... 

Here are my thoughts on how to address the broader land ownership and PVE issues:

  1. Allow building anywhere, but it decays naturally over (x) amount of time. *bear with me 🙂
  2. ALL "abandoned" structures decay -- but you can combat this with a "settlement" (see below).
  3. Add in temporary buildings that can be packed up (also decay over time)  -- Tents and base camp equipment -- These could be limited use light versions of all the basic needs --> hammock/spawn point, sawhorse/crafting, camp-stove/cooking, portable resource chest for gathering, taming cages ... 
  4. The Bank becomes the new flag (town square) for a "Settlement" -- requires a goodly amount of resource to build one, but once you do, you own a physical settlement -- Players can then request through an interface on the bank to build (a residence, trading post, port, etc).
    • Upkeep, taxes, resources to repair, all still apply.
    • Post jobs in the bank, (gold for resources, or items needed for the settlement) -- this becomes a center for trade and commerce.
  5. Structures in settlements decay VERY slowly, and can be destroyed by Settlement "admins".
  6. If you park your ship in a settlement (you are not a member of) longer than two days, the settlement will begin to pull money from your resource chest (dock fees)... If gold runs out, an abandoned ship will become "unclaimed", and available for claim or salvage. <-- this could work for abandoned buildings as well. 
  7. Settlements are not Companies, but can be owned by one (or more). Base the success of a settlement on trade volume (leader boards).
  8. Allow all members of a settlement the ability to use all basic crafting equipment.
  9. Resources for crafting are pulled from your own personal or a public resource chest that's within the towns radius (like a lockable resource trough).
  10. Players can buy and sell settlements (deeds) -- the value set in game, and based on the resources and amenities within the banks radius.
  11. Increase crew and weigh limits on ships to a reasonable level so they could be used as a mobile base --> encourage exploration and trade between settlements.
  12. Turn select zones in to PVP "lawless zones" -- Encourages piracy <-- which would be far more lucrative if there is strong trade. Going in is a choice, and might cut time off of lucrative trade routes, but you go in at your own risk. ALL PVP rules would apply in these zones.

These are just "brainstorm" ideas wandering down a slightly different path. I know these are rough.
This thought exercise riffs off the goals of simplifying (where possible), using existing game systems, adding healthy PVE tension, while attempting to decoupling players from obvious grief systems.

Thoughts??

Edited by Argh!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Rainy said:

I understand what you are saying and you're not wrong. But then why would a solo person need the same amount of space as 7 people?  Maybe break it down a little further?  A company of 1-5 get 3 flags...6-10 get 6 flags...etc

 

Youre doing the mat a bit wrong. Its not that one person needs the same amount of space as 7 people, its that 7 people can use the same amount of space as one person without losing anything, since the minimum required space for crafting stations(smithy, loom tannery) wont change much for a handful of players.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×