09-19-2015, 05:15 PM
My personal preferences
1. I think that our main map should use a combination of features from both of the previous ones, to suit those players who defined details for their nations based on locations on either of those maps, but without the further continents that Embolalia added: Bearing in mind the low level of take-up for spaces on those continents by the other regions? members, and the fact that one of those other regions involved has effectively ceased to exist, I doubt whether we would get many complaints about this although of course leaving the a place for the non-IDU "Schnauzer" lands off to the west would probably still be necessary.
However we might also have an associated version of Reality that uses RL geography, to suit those players who want to claim lands on that basis, with certain areas (probably in the seas, rather than on land) defined as possible routes for crossing between the two worlds.
2. Pixel-based, preferably .png, so that as many as possible of the people who want to do so can work on detailed maps for their nations using just 'Paint' without having to gain access to any other graphics programmes.
3. As before, roughly from the northern edge of the tropics to the southern edge of the Arctic but with [relatively small] extensions possible outside those limits for nations whose players who really consider them appropriate.
Perhaps, though, though, we could then add one relatively small continent to the south that would be linked to the main IDU by one or more chains of islands but [probably] would be basically uninhabited (perhaps due to the presence there of virulent tropical diseases that have prevented colonisation)? That would help to explain where migratory birds from the main IDU go to in our Winter season.
4. Some nations that are no longer being played might be so heavily written into the back-stories for nations that are still active that they really have to be left in place, at least with part of their previous lands. I would argue that this is the case for Mikitivity, the western neighbour of the Bears' "Mainland" territories, but am more flexible in the case of Keeslandia as long as whoever takes that area over accepts the presence of the major river that reaches the sea within it that provides the main drainage for those "Mainland" territories (and the presence within that river of various Fish species whose members migrate between our own lands and the sea). The location of the Free Land relative to both Bears Armed and Mikitivity is also fairly fixed, in my opinion.
Beyond that, I think that we should be flexible and should consider not only nations' past histories IC but also whether they have an OOC history of fading in & out of existence, instead of setting hard-&-fast rules. And of course leaving nations at least nominally on the map if nobody else actually wants to take over their previous locations wouldn't be unreasonable, would it?
5. I would rather not set a firm limit in this respect, neither, because of the hoped-for possibility that we will get other newcomers who jump straight into activity here and whose wishes for places on the maps it would therefore be nice to accommodate as quickly as possible: I?d just point out that (1) if somebody wants to add one or more islands, or take over the exact borders of either a CTE-d nation or a still-unclaimed area, then this would obviously be easier for whoever becomes our new main Cartographer than giving them a territory that overlaps previous borders and should perhaps therefore be given quicker approval than the latter possibility; (2) that we could acknowledge a newly-arrived nation's geographical location quickly but then still wait for a little while, to see how serious they are about joining in with urrs, before actually drawing them into the maps; and (3) that if somebody claims a place but then isn't really active, and somebody else subsequently wants the same location, then it would probably be reasonable to ask the first of those nations to give up that area.
:Bear:
1. I think that our main map should use a combination of features from both of the previous ones, to suit those players who defined details for their nations based on locations on either of those maps, but without the further continents that Embolalia added: Bearing in mind the low level of take-up for spaces on those continents by the other regions? members, and the fact that one of those other regions involved has effectively ceased to exist, I doubt whether we would get many complaints about this although of course leaving the a place for the non-IDU "Schnauzer" lands off to the west would probably still be necessary.
However we might also have an associated version of Reality that uses RL geography, to suit those players who want to claim lands on that basis, with certain areas (probably in the seas, rather than on land) defined as possible routes for crossing between the two worlds.
2. Pixel-based, preferably .png, so that as many as possible of the people who want to do so can work on detailed maps for their nations using just 'Paint' without having to gain access to any other graphics programmes.
3. As before, roughly from the northern edge of the tropics to the southern edge of the Arctic but with [relatively small] extensions possible outside those limits for nations whose players who really consider them appropriate.
Perhaps, though, though, we could then add one relatively small continent to the south that would be linked to the main IDU by one or more chains of islands but [probably] would be basically uninhabited (perhaps due to the presence there of virulent tropical diseases that have prevented colonisation)? That would help to explain where migratory birds from the main IDU go to in our Winter season.
4. Some nations that are no longer being played might be so heavily written into the back-stories for nations that are still active that they really have to be left in place, at least with part of their previous lands. I would argue that this is the case for Mikitivity, the western neighbour of the Bears' "Mainland" territories, but am more flexible in the case of Keeslandia as long as whoever takes that area over accepts the presence of the major river that reaches the sea within it that provides the main drainage for those "Mainland" territories (and the presence within that river of various Fish species whose members migrate between our own lands and the sea). The location of the Free Land relative to both Bears Armed and Mikitivity is also fairly fixed, in my opinion.
Beyond that, I think that we should be flexible and should consider not only nations' past histories IC but also whether they have an OOC history of fading in & out of existence, instead of setting hard-&-fast rules. And of course leaving nations at least nominally on the map if nobody else actually wants to take over their previous locations wouldn't be unreasonable, would it?
5. I would rather not set a firm limit in this respect, neither, because of the hoped-for possibility that we will get other newcomers who jump straight into activity here and whose wishes for places on the maps it would therefore be nice to accommodate as quickly as possible: I?d just point out that (1) if somebody wants to add one or more islands, or take over the exact borders of either a CTE-d nation or a still-unclaimed area, then this would obviously be easier for whoever becomes our new main Cartographer than giving them a territory that overlaps previous borders and should perhaps therefore be given quicker approval than the latter possibility; (2) that we could acknowledge a newly-arrived nation's geographical location quickly but then still wait for a little while, to see how serious they are about joining in with urrs, before actually drawing them into the maps; and (3) that if somebody claims a place but then isn't really active, and somebody else subsequently wants the same location, then it would probably be reasonable to ask the first of those nations to give up that area.
:Bear: