What a tease!
Tbh I think that naming your beacon and/or city in addition to private/group/guild makers feels more than enough for me, especially on a world that is 4k x 4k blocks (not saying that this is too small)
But if something like named areas is going to get into the game IĀ“d say it shouldnĀ“t be more than 2-3 marks per world, reserved only for the most remarkable spots on a world.
2 Likes
While i see your point i think that you see it as a different tool. You mention remarkable spots. But i think that the purpose of naming areas of the world has more to do with directions and being able to find your way around the world. or atleast giving you a general idea where you and your mate are. If there was something like āSomex Plainsā as a random name. its not a fancy. it has nothing special. but you atleast know where you are.
3 Likes
IsnĀ“t that the purpose of beacon/city naming & private/group/guild markers already?
1 Like
No, they reward exploration - definitely feels good to find areas that other players have yet to claim in one way or another
2 Likes
Iāll make the same argument against this as I did with @Havok40k when he presented this. It would be fun for us, but not fun for future players if they couldnāt experience that same satisfaction because weāve already found everything.
I think exploration should be at a personal/guild level, not a system level.
3 Likes
Just like @Clexarews IĀ“d say that regions should already be named when the game launches, not by the players after the launch.
I think this is where the āLocation Signalsā come into play.
IĀ“d assume that this location signals will be used like private bookmarks and will get put up by players/groups/guilds to be able to navigate on a world.
E.g.
While additional region-naming would not add much to the navigability imo
So I stick to my suggestion that only a few of the most remarkable spots should get a unique name.
Like naming a big square mountain that is covered with orange grass/soil āLesters Mountainā.
1 Like