BattleMaster Community
BattleMaster => Development => Feature Requests => Topic started by: Chenier on December 10, 2012, 04:14:41 PM
-
Title: Modification of southern Dwilight sea zone shapes and borders
Summary: Re-drawing some of the sea zone polygons in order to grant port importance equivalent to how things used to be prior to the implementation of the new sea travel code, a greater balance of sea zone uses and size, and connections that would better simulate realistic naval travel (cutting down useless detours).
Details: Changes proposed:
- Moving the Pana Gulf / Sapphire Deep limit north, either maintaining the same region connections or plugging it to the Maeotis peninsula. Reason: Equilibrating sea zone sizes.
- Moving the Sapphire Deep / Sea of Silence limit south, from Raviel to Paisly. Reason: Allowing Port Raviel to connect directly with Paisly in a single sea zone, avoiding illogical detours and preserving historical importance of Port Raviel as a liaison to Paisly instead of forcing the role upon the townsland of Raviel.
- Moving the Gold Sea / Sea of Silence limit south, from the middle island to Mistight (or Lavendrow). Reason: Equilibrating sea zone size. No impact on Port Raviel to Golden Farrow travel times. Would make the limit respect the logic that limits ought to be on cities or between cities, and not next to them.
- Moving Ravielan Sea limits. Reason: Equilibrating sea zone sizes by enlarging the Sapphire Deep and shrinking the Sallowcape Drift.
- Moving the Sallowcape Drift / Shattered Shores limit south, from Sallowtown to Qubel Lighthouse. Reason: Respecting the logic that limits should be either on cities/strongholds or between them, and not next to them (this logic stems from the fact that cities and strongholds are the most likely destination and origin points, and such placement minimizes travel detours due to illogical zone travel and distance from zone centers. Following this logic helps minimize cases where one has to go south and then west before being able to travel to his northern destination, as one would have to do in this case to do Sallowtown-Mimer)
- Simplifying the Blossomer Sea / Shattered Shores limit. Reason: Equilibrating sea zone sizes to enlarge Blossomer Sea and shrink Shattered Shores
[li]Splitting up Shattered Shores into two zones. Reason: Cutting down excess back and forth for travel between Port Raviel and Port Nebel.
[/li][/list]
Benefits: A better respect of the historical importance of ports as per the old sea lanes (making sure that a townsland like Raviel doesn't become a more strategic harbor point than a city like Port Raviel) and a shapes that allow overall more direct travel paths that reduce the odds of having to move in all kinds of directions before being able to travel towards one's destination.
Possible Exploits: No possible "exploits". Of course, some realms gain from this change, notably D'Hara (which I'm part of and won't attempt to hide), but imo this is just compensating for what would be most logical and for how things used to be, so it's not giving it an advantage, but rather fixing an unintended handicap along with making sea travel more intuitive and realistic.
If redrawing the polygons is a hassle, I think I could do it for you. I drew polygons for BT once for you guys, if it's the same format I could easily do the same for sea zones. It'd be insanely quicker too, much less precision and many less regions. The Sapphire Deep sea zone's the one I got the most beef with, but I guess my geographer education pushes me towards an obsession of optimizing land divisions in order to minimize distortions (where one splits up a territory into regions to minimize distortions was a big part of the things I used to do). If it's a different format, you could just let me know what format it is, and I can check if my software is compatible with it.
For reference: start of discussion was here:
Really feels weird to have to take a huge detour by sea to get to Paisly or Paisland from Port Raviel, when it was always just a short trip away. I don't understand why the sea zones there weren't made to emulate how travel used to be. Otherwise it'd force us to board from Raviel... which is utterly akward, when we've always left from PORT Raviel right next door. Just seems like that's the place we ought to be building actual ports, not Raviel...
Port Raviel/Paisly is the only short sea route that seems to have been turned into a two-zone trip that I can see. Everywhere else, sea zones respect established sea routes. To compare, Port Raviel/Golden Farrow was made a one-zone switch, but Golden Farrow is much farther and travel between the two was always a lot more limited.
Just seems to me that the zones should have been like this, to keep short sea routes as a one zone hop, and longer sea routes as a two zone hop.
(http://img39.imageshack.us/img39/7871/dwilightseazones.png)
-
Two things to consider:
Size of sea zones has no effect whatsoever on anything. Since there are no resources at sea, the size of a sea zone is nowhere even calculated in the game.
What matters is the center points, because like for land regions, travel between sea zones is largely assumed to be from center to center (with exceptions for embarking and landing, so a next-region ship trip does not actually go via the center).
Shifting sea zone borders in within the same region (as in the Sallowcape/Ravielan case) does absolutely bugger all. Well, the center shifts a little, but it'll probably make no difference in travel times, and it doesn't change where you can embark or land, so it's purely cosmetic.
Finally, like region borders, most of the zoning was done with geography in mind, not political borders or historical importance, which can always change in the future. Likewise, the sea doesn't care where cities and strongholds are.
That said, these zone are probably not the last word and absolute perfection, I'll grant that. So I am willing to listen to input.
-
Currently, I strongly dislike the current sea zone borders. It is true that the sea don't care where the cities are but since the seas have always been there, who ever made these great ports, would have made them in the most strategic location so as to border as many seas as possible, not the current setup.
-
would have made them in the most strategic location so as to border as many seas as possible, not the current setup.
Uh, no. Harbors are made where you can make them, not where it makes strategic sense. You can't just put a harbor anywhere you would like to. Many modern harbours have the problem that they are not ideally located for trade anymore.
-
Finally, like region borders, most of the zoning was done with geography in mind, not political borders or historical importance, which can always change in the future. Likewise, the sea doesn't care where cities and strongholds are.
The sea does not care where strongholds or cities are but it is important to acknowledge how the sea is and always was.
So i'd say we prevent the new sea zones from changing travel times from previous sea routes considerably.
Thats how the sea was thats where the roleplay consistency is build upon.
If we change travel times suddenly it means the sea would have changed somehow, that does not regularly happen.
So lets try to respect how things where as much as possible.
If cheniers changes make travel times closer to what they always where, i'd say yes.
-
What matters is the center points, because like for land regions, travel between sea zones is largely assumed to be from center to center (with exceptions for embarking and landing, so a next-region ship trip does not actually go via the center).
Do you mean, for example, that for a trip from Port Raviel to Paisly the assumed boat path is outlined in red, but only the part in yellow is actually used for calculating the time, and the parts in red are fixed embarking/landing value?
That still makes it quite a convoluted path.
-
Do you mean, for example, that for a trip from Port Raviel to Paisly the assumed boat path is outlined in red, but only the part in yellow is actually used for calculating the time, and the parts in red are fixed embarking/landing value?
That still makes it quite a convoluted path.
This is exactly the kind of stuff I want to have fixed.
(http://img339.imageshack.us/img339/1448/dwiseachanges.png)
Though I'd do a minor tweak to Boiling Sea/Dancing tides, the inner sea's where all the major distortions are.
Sea "zones", imo, should just be cut-ups of a undividable body of water in a way to minimize such distortions. They aren't political, they are geographical. And they make travel intra-realm travel times atrociously long (on top of expensive) for island realms, once the old sea lanes get removed.
-
With the system being as it is, you will always find some route that doesn't make sense. Someone will certainly come along if your changes are approved and find issues with them, for some other connections that they bother about.
Instead of feeling discriminated against, don't you see how much this makes your island realm MORE viable? Before you were tied to a small number of specific routes. A small alliance of realms could have easily boxed you in by taking control of all of them. Now you can go anywhere.
-
Honestly, I'm with Chénier on this. I see absolutely no reason for the sea zones to be set up deliberately to make the old sea routes take longer.
Sea zones are clearly not placed based on any particular geographical boundary. They are placed so as to split up the ocean reasonably evenly. There's absolutely no reason why the sea zone should make it take an extra trip way the heck out north to get from Port Raviel to Paisly.
Your argument, Tom, makes sense for land-based regions, and might make sense if there was some feel to the sea zones that there was some kind of actual geographic (hydrographic?) or meteorological reason for most of them to be split up the way they are. But with all the straight edges, they're clearly just, "Well, we'll call this part the Sea of Silence, and that part the Sapphire Deep. Where's the split between them? Oh, I dunno, how about....there."
-
As I said: They are not set in stone, and yes they were drawn fairly arbitrarily. However, they WERE drawn on geography, for example often at narrow parts of a sea, or at a cape or hook.
One thing I intentionally ignored were existing sea routes. I don't see a reason to take them into account, because they were just as arbitrary. So the argument "this makes an existing route longer" holds no water to me, because at the same time it will make other (not-yet-existing) routes shorter, or even possible.
Also, the yellow zig-zag lines are not entirely true, and thus misleading. The actual routes are a bit more tricky, but shouldn't really matter. Judge travel times, not paths that don't have any in-game meaning.
-
One thing I intentionally ignored were existing sea routes. I don't see a reason to take them into account, because they were just as arbitrary. So the argument "this makes an existing route longer" holds no water to me, because at the same time it will make other (not-yet-existing) routes shorter, or even possible.
But this argument makes little sense.
The existing sea routes were, every one, drawn along what made good sense as trade routes. They were from city to city, and most of the city pairs were the closest 2 cities spanning a particular body of water. Now, obviously, long routes like from the D'Haran islands up to Morek/Astrum don't make sense to try to preserve as a single sea zone—but short routes like from Paisly to Port Raviel, or from Libidizedd to Eidulb, make perfect sense. (And I would note that Libidizedd's two sea routes have been preserved as a single sea zone.) I don't have a problem with upsetting the old order for good reasons, but upsetting the old order simply for the sake of it is silly.
In short, long-standing IC trade routes like the old sea routes should, in general, be shorter hops than other trips of similar distances. That's why they would be trade routes in the first place.
-
with the current map as it is....why would anyone want to sail from paisly to port raviel anyway?
go from paisly to raviel then go by foot to port raviel.
similarly.. port raviel<->farrowfield. or port raviel<->sallowtown
saves a lot of time.
win some. lose some...
-
with the current map as it is....why would anyone want to sail from paisly to port raviel anyway?
go from paisly to raviel then go by foot to port raviel.
similarly.. port raviel<->farrowfield. or port raviel<->sallowtown
saves a lot of time.
win some. lose some...
Embarking costs gold depending on the infrastructure. What you propose forces one to build all of the harbors in Raviel instead of Port Raviel (which is stupid), or in both should you do Port Raviel-(Northern Cities) often, and adds an extra turn of travel because land roads take a minimum of 1 turn per region.
Cities should be the transportation hubs, the travel nodes. Encouraging people to split their harbor investments into a ton of townslands just serves no purpose at all.
Also, the yellow zig-zag lines are not entirely true, and thus misleading. The actual routes are a bit more tricky, but shouldn't really matter. Judge travel times, not paths that don't have any in-game meaning.
How are they not entirely true and thus misleading? Are sea travel times not based on centroids?
Most of the other sea zones create only minor distortions from what I could observe. The inner sea is where there are all the major distortions. The proposed changes I presented do not eliminate distortions, but they reduce them considerably, well-within the acceptable average found elsewhere.
Instead of feeling discriminated against, don't you see how much this makes your island realm MORE viable? Before you were tied to a small number of specific routes. A small alliance of realms could have easily boxed you in by taking control of all of them. Now you can go anywhere.
How do you figure this? Unless I'm mistaken, you said there were no such thing as blockades and naval battles. Whether there be 1 or 10 sea zones around D'Hara, I don't see how this changes anything as far as defense goes. All I see it doing is increasing intra-realm travel times dramatically.
-
Cities should be the transportation hubs, the travel nodes. Encouraging people to split their harbor investments into a ton of townslands just serves no purpose at all.
i don't agree with that. take BT. i'm going to stick a harbour in avengmil, because that's where it makes sense. if you want to go the southern route via boats, then you go from Rines to Avengmil to take a boat. instead of embarking from Rines, then sail the long way around up melegra then down again.
if you take Raviel. It's obvious that you should stick a harbour there too. look where it leads.
laraibina, panafau, aveston, mattan dews, sallowtown, etc to the south and east, as well as paisly and all on the other side.
thus raviel to go sw/s/se/e, port raviel to go nw/n/ne.
gain so much as it is, so you lose port raviel<->paisly 1 hop trip. big deal.
how many harbours do you need in a single region? does stacking make things cheaper? i would have thought 1 is enough
also... until port raviel is the capital again, you won't even bother going there.
-
i don't agree with that. take BT. i'm going to stick a harbour in avengmil, because that's where it makes sense. if you want to go the southern route via boats, then you go from Rines to Avengmil to take a boat. instead of embarking from Rines, then sail the long way around up melegra then down again.
if you take Raviel. It's obvious that you should stick a harbour there too. look where it leads.
laraibina, panafau, aveston, mattan dews, sallowtown, etc to the south and east, as well as paisly and all on the other side.
thus raviel to go sw/s/se/e, port raviel to go nw/n/ne.
gain so much as it is, so you lose port raviel<->paisly 1 hop trip. big deal.
how many harbours do you need in a single region? does stacking make things cheaper? i would have thought 1 is enough
also... until port raviel is the capital again, you won't even bother going there.
Not comparable... at all.
And I don't even see why on earth you'd bother. Both of your most important cities border the Sea of Four Cities, which is the only sea worth embarking to in your case. Sticking harbors in whichever is to be your permanent capital is the most logical choice, none of your other regions actually need a harbor (though you can put one in Melegra, there'd be no point to it).
And Riombara doesn't need to hop on a boat for intra-realm travel, because, you know, you aren't split up onto four land bodies?
Not to mention that there are no significant distortions in the sea zones around Riombara. They are all pretty much perfect, none of them force any kind of zigzag. Per linear mile, Riombarans will need to travel far less hours than D'Harans will. And yet, they'll also need to take the sea far less often.
-
have you actually tried travelling with a unit?
look at the map, what's the best way of going from Rines to Jidington or some such down south?
by sea. You save a lot of equipment damage that way. also quicker
how do you go from Rines to Jidington? Do you go like an idiot and sail north around melegra, east or then south?
or do you embark from Avengmil to eastern drift, then sail south, saving you, I don't know, 3 days or some such?
as i said, there's absolutely no reason to equate harbours with cities. harbours aren't that expensive and there's no reason to stick 1 in 1 city and nowhere else when you can put them in multiple regions. having a harbour in 1 place doesn't make it more expensive elsewhere.
why does it matter that d'hara is split into 4 pieces? why on earth would you need to go to all 4 pieces regularly? and if you need to go to all of them so regularly, then having more harbours make even more sense. heck, since raviel can reach all 4 pieces in 1 hop. all the more reasons to stick harbours there.
just because port raviel is called port raviel doesn't mean raviel can't be used as a port. there's no reason not to have the whole island as a giant port. just adapt, not that hard.
-
have you actually tried travelling with a unit?
look at the map, what's the best way of going from Rines to Jidington or some such down south?
by sea. You save a lot of equipment damage that way. also quicker
how do you go from Rines to Jidington? Do you go like an idiot and sail north around melegra, east or then south?
or do you embark from Avengmil to eastern drift, then sail south, saving you, I don't know, 3 days or some such?
as i said, there's absolutely no reason to equate harbours with cities. harbours aren't that expensive and there's no reason to stick 1 in 1 city and nowhere else when you can put them in multiple regions. having a harbour in 1 place doesn't make it more expensive elsewhere.
why does it matter that d'hara is split into 4 pieces? why on earth would you need to go to all 4 pieces regularly? and if you need to go to all of them so regularly, then having more harbours make even more sense. heck, since raviel can reach all 4 pieces in 1 hop. all the more reasons to stick harbours there.
just because port raviel is called port raviel doesn't mean raviel can't be used as a port. there's no reason not to have the whole island as a giant port. just adapt, not that hard.
Riombara never had sea routes. You just gained a whole bunch of shortcuts you didn't have access to a few months ago, you've got absolutely nothing to complain about. All of your long travel times have been cut.
D'Hara relies on sea routes. All of our sea routes will eventually disappear to be replaced by the new sea travel. All of this will always take a lot more time and gold than the old sea routes. In addition, it will also cost infrastructure. But to top it all off, the sea zones are drawn in such a way that exaggerates the travel times, therefore making the travel time increases even worse than they should be.
Rio only gained shortcuts. Shortcuts which were drawn in a way that minimizes distortions and therefore travel times. You don't actually need to embark at any time whatsoever to get anywhere. You have one convenient embarkment zone you really need to invest in.
Rio's situation is absolutely nothing like D'Hara's.
-
Do keep in mind that it cuts both ways. Your travel times to the outside world are also your enemies travel times to your homeland. Just saying, not that you complain later.
-
Do keep in mind that it cuts both ways. Your travel times to the outside world are also your enemies travel times to your homeland. Just saying, not that you complain later.
99% of the travel being done to and from the isles will be by D'Harans. 99% of that 1% will likely be done by allies. Enemies are the least of my concerns.
In any case, I'm not asking "please give us shortcuts and make travel times shorter than one would expect them to be!" I'm willing to accept that the mechanics for sea travel will change for something which, overall, is better. I'm also able to accept that this will have, as a consequence, longer and more expensive travel times for D'Harans.
Because they make things more realistic, and are the same for everyone.
What bothers me is the shape of the sea zones in the central sea. Because they create distortions that are way larger than other probable sea routes (city to city travels, which will represent the bulk of all travel, with city to/from non-city taking almost all of the rest, leaving non-city to non-city travel with a marginal share of all sea travels). All I'm asking for is that the travel times per linear mile for Paisly/Port Raviel, Port Raviel/Port Nebel, and Qubel Lighthouse/Sallowtown be roughly the same as the travel times per linear miles for Candiels/Tower Fatmilak, Madina/Fissoa, Itau/Echiur, Dongheiwai/Flowrestown, Flowrestown/Poryatown, Askileon/Giask, Mimer/Libidizedd, Mimer/Eidulb, Libidizedd/Eidulb... All of these travel paths use sea zones with centroids about on the linear path between the two cities. Some of the other unmentioned connections have small distortions (which I'd love to see fixed if such was possible and I'm willing to draw proposals for such), but none anywhere as bad as D'Hara's distortions.
Travel times will necessarily increase. Travel costs will necessarily increase. I'm fine with that, they are the same for everyone, and will offer new mechanics and possibilities in compensation. And most of all, it's more realistic, and we'll finally be able to build that fleet we always imagined having. However, it's still a burden, it could at least be as imposing per distance traveled as others, even if it'll always be a lot more in total. (D'Harans will sail more than anyone, and almost only D'Harans will use these weird sea zones).
As I said, I'm offering to redraw it all for you. With a spreadsheet to give a report of the travel distortions in the new divisions. And I'd only add one more sea zone (splitting up Shattered Shores), though changes could also be done in the southern sea zones without creating any significant distortions should the total number of sea zones need to be the same (though I'm guessing remapping the connections would make the previous option easier).
-
complain? i didn't complain at all about riombara. why would i complain? i just gained a bunch of quick routes for my old characters. bargain.
bear in mind that d'hara just gained a big load of shorter routes and you complain 1 is made longer... by 1 turn on land?
or do you prefer zones being altered to having to sail 2 or 3 zones to go from port raviel to sallowtown, like it used to require? (port raviel->port nebel->walk to qubel lighthouse->sallowtown) after all, it's only fair to alter the whole lot if you want the old routes equivalents back.
-
complain? i didn't complain at all about riombara. why would i complain? i just gained a bunch of quick routes for my old characters. bargain.
bear in mind that d'hara just gained a big load of shorter routes and you complain 1 is made longer... by 1 turn on land?
or do you prefer zones being altered to having to sail 2 or 3 zones to go from port raviel to sallowtown, like it used to require? (port raviel->port nebel->walk to qubel lighthouse->sallowtown) after all, it's only fair to alter the whole lot if you want the old routes equivalents back.
Now you are losing productive thoughts. Port raviel to Sallowtown never was a route so your claim does not apply as he talking strictly the old sea routes, not how they were used when combined. As to your complain comment at the beginning, that is precisely what he said , though he may have implied you were complaining due to the way you talked traveling through the sea zones partially sounded like complaining, nonetheless arguing will not help this so try to stay away from comments solely to argue something. ( Yes, this is a bit hypocritical to my last statement, but can't be said otherwise.)
-
Personally, I like the look of Chénier's changes.
-
complain? i didn't complain at all about riombara. why would i complain? i just gained a bunch of quick routes for my old characters. bargain.
bear in mind that d'hara just gained a big load of shorter routes and you complain 1 is made longer... by 1 turn on land?
or do you prefer zones being altered to having to sail 2 or 3 zones to go from port raviel to sallowtown, like it used to require? (port raviel->port nebel->walk to qubel lighthouse->sallowtown) after all, it's only fair to alter the whole lot if you want the old routes equivalents back.
I prefer a realistic travel time for the distance to be traveled, by the reduction of distortions due to unintuitive zone cut-ups.
There's a bunch of reasons to go from island to island, continent to continent. There's ambassador work, courtier work, trading, preaching, police work, civil work, investments, guild funding, RP meetings, etc, etc.
I don't mind the fact that taking a hop through a townsland to get from Port Raviel to Sallowtown might make the trip somewhat shorter. I just want the sea-only travel from city to city not to be needlessly long due to distortions.
Because correct me if I'm wrong, but sailing times are based off the distance between centroids, right?
What bothers me is distortions in such a high-traffic area. I'm not a huge fan of Dancing Tides either, but I honestly don't expect as much North->South traffic to be had there as in the central sea.
-
What if we added one or two sea zones? That should shrink the areas involved, and make the region centers closer together, reducing travel times.
-
Because correct me if I'm wrong, but sailing times are based off the distance between centroids, right?
Only between sea zones. If landing or embarking are involved, it's not that easy.
So if you embark in X to A and travel to B and then to C and then land in Y (with X,Y land regions and A,B,C sea zones), then:
- travel between X and A is embarking time, geography has no effect
- travel from A to B depends on X and is not between centroids (but towards B's center)
- travel from B to C is between centroids
- travel from C to Y is landing time, geography does have an effect, in this case it is calculated from C's center.(*)
(*) however, if you do a trip like X to A to Y, it will NOT be calculated from A's center, but based on X
What if we added one or two sea zones? That should shrink the areas involved, and make the region centers closer together, reducing travel times.
No, please. The number of sea zones is intentionally kept small, and their sizes intentionally several times of land regions. You would have to make an exceptionally convincing case for me to consider adding any zones, much more convincing that shifting a few borders around.
-
I like the thrust of the proposal, but can examples be provided that do not seem to be so clearly to the immediate advantage of D'Hara?
-
I like the thrust of the proposal, but can examples be provided that do not seem to be so clearly to the immediate advantage of D'Hara?
Cheniers point is, this isn't an advantage for D'hara but a disadvantage no one else has.
-
Cheniers point is, this isn't an advantage for D'hara but a disadvantage no one else has.
There are several other natural advantages that D'Hara enjoys. A reasonable person could argue that it should be slightly less convenient for an island nation of four/five cities to travel about. It doesn't make much sense if you're thinking "simulator", but BM isn't much of a simulator.
-
Only between sea zones. If landing or embarking are involved, it's not that easy.
So if you embark in X to A and travel to B and then to C and then land in Y (with X,Y land regions and A,B,C sea zones), then:
- travel between X and A is embarking time, geography has no effect
- travel from A to B depends on X and is not between centroids (but towards B's center)
- travel from B to C is between centroids
- travel from C to Y is landing time, geography does have an effect, in this case it is calculated from C's center.(*)
(*) however, if you do a trip like X to A to Y, it will NOT be calculated from A's center, but based on X
No, please. The number of sea zones is intentionally kept small, and their sizes intentionally several times of land regions. You would have to make an exceptionally convincing case for me to consider adding any zones, much more convincing that shifting a few borders around.
Thank you for this explanation. I'll look over this and recalculate assumed distortions, to see if effective distortions are smaller, equal, or greater than believed. Off the top of my head, I can't say for sure right now.
Cheniers point is, this isn't an advantage for D'hara but a disadvantage no one else has.
This. At least, not at a level anywhere near D'Hara's. I'm quite willing to help minimize distortions everywhere, though.
-
I like the thrust of the proposal, but can examples be provided that do not seem to be so clearly to the immediate advantage of D'Hara?
To be fair, any advantage D'Hara gains is a disadvantage as well. As been pointed out, streamlining traffic out also streamlines traffic in.
-
I like the thrust of the proposal, but can examples be provided that do not seem to be so clearly to the immediate advantage of D'Hara?
The point is that the zones as they are now makes the geography very different from what they were before for D'Hara. If that's also the case for other realms, it should be fixed too; on top of my head it isn't.
-
Now you are losing productive thoughts. Port raviel to Sallowtown never was a route so your claim does not apply as he talking strictly the old sea routes, not how they were used when combined. As to your complain comment at the beginning, that is precisely what he said , though he may have implied you were complaining due to the way you talked traveling through the sea zones partially sounded like complaining, nonetheless arguing will not help this so try to stay away from comments solely to argue something. ( Yes, this is a bit hypocritical to my last statement, but can't be said otherwise.)
precisely - port raviel<->sallowtown was never a direct route. Now in a single stroke Port Raviel and Raviel gained multiple 1 hop routes like that whilst Port Raviel lost its 1 hop to Paisly. You don't think that on balance, D'hara has come out on top already? If Port Raviel<->Paisly is to be changed into 1 hop, surely the same argument can be applied to make all those new 1 hoppers into 2 hops.
bear in mind, I play trader (from time to time) in D'hara.
-
precisely - port raviel<->sallowtown was never a direct route. Now in a single stroke Port Raviel and Raviel gained multiple 1 hop routes like that whilst Port Raviel lost its 1 hop to Paisly. You don't think that on balance, D'hara has come out on top already? If Port Raviel<->Paisly is to be changed into 1 hop, surely the same argument can be applied to make all those new 1 hoppers into 2 hops.
bear in mind, I play trader (from time to time) in D'hara.
All realms gained quick hops around their realm. Aside from Astrum to a minor degree, none are losing shorter paths.