Not enough map space for 1 freehold per account.

My own calculations disagree.

We were unable to determine the author of the quoted post.

(ref: Wiki: Servers > Server Population )

We were unable to determine the author of the quoted post.

(ref: Wiki: Freeholds )

We were unable to determine the author of the quoted post.

(ref: Wiki: World map > World size )

According to Google , 1 Acre is 0.00404686 km², making a freehold 0.00404686 km² / 2 = 0.00202343 km². (Unfortunately, arsnn was off by an order of magnitude on this constant when they tried to do similar math.)

Based on this map , the world seems to be about 60% land. We're gonna call it 50%, in order to simplify the math, and be slightly conservative. If we get to the point where the numbers are "close", there'll be something to discuss regardless.

So let's do some math.

1. A freehold is 0.00202343 km².
2. Considering only the surface, the world is 480 km². (We'll remove water later.)
3. We see that this amount of space (before we reserve any of it for other things) can be divided into 480/0.00202343 = 237221 freehold plots.
4. With only 50% land (see above), we now have 237221/2 = 1163610.5 ERROR. See my post below for the correct analysis, as well as a broader discussion of the situation. freehold plots worth of space.
5. With 50,000 registered accounts per server, this leaves us with enough room to grant each player 1163610.5 / 50000 = 23.27221 freeholds.

Put another way, (1/23.27221 = ) 4.3% of the map would be occupied by freeholds if all players chose to have one, leaving 95.7% of the map free for node structures, wilderness, grind spots, and everything else. (Remember that we've already accounted for water, and we haven't used any of the space available in the under-realms, and of course remember that freeholds must be near nodes. They won't be out in the wilderness.)

We have not received permission from arsnn to share the quoted post.

Entirely correct. My apologies. Rerunning my math from step 4, I get a quite different result.

4. With only 50% land (see above), we now have 237221/2 = 118610.5 freehold plots worth of space.
5. With 50,000 registered accounts per server, this leaves us with enough room to grant each player 118610.5 / 50000 = 2.37221 freeholds.

Put another way, (1/2.37221 = ) 42.2% of the map would be occupied by freeholds if all players chose to have one, leaving 57.8% of the map free for node structures, wilderness, grind spots, and everything else.

From this perspective I agree with the concern. The question is moreso what to do about it. There are obviously several options:

1. Decide that not everyone should have a freehold.
2. Require some minor upkeep on freeholds, and then assume that not all 50,000 registered accounts will be active players who will maintain a freehold. (And then presumably fall back to #1, if they're wrong.)
3. Expand the map.
4. Run out of space.

Obviously they're not going to choose "run out of space", which I think is what some posters here were getting at. It's relatively well-established that the number of freeholds any given node can support in its vicinity will be limited, so I'm not so concerned that you will have freeholds over 40% of the map.

Unfortunately, the size of the map is constrained by many other factors, some of the simplest of which are:

• How far does a player have to walk to get to a new node?
• How far does a player have to walk to get to a new 'biome'?
• How many creatures of a given type should we have in one area (and therefore how bunched up or spread out do they need to be based on the size of that 'biome'?

There are more, but you can start to see how "number of freeholds" can't determine the actual scale of the map. At that point, all that's left to do is add new regions and push beyond the current borders, and one could make another long list of considerations there.

What I personally find most likely is that they will go with option 2, and specifically accept the consequence of option 1. Steven has said several times lately that Ashes will have winners and losers, and not everyone can be a winner. Between this and the incentive to band together to wreck a node to displace existing freeholds and take them for yourself (which plays right into the style of player driven conflict that Ashes is supposed to be about), I don't see Steven making another choice when this inevitably winds up on his desk.

I think this is something that will end up getting tuned in Beta 1, or even Alpha 2. While Alpha 2 might have too few players, the number of developed nodes will be smaller as a result, so we'll still see whether a node has enough freeholds to support its local player base. I think this is something that will come onto Intrepid's radar in a timeframe that will allow them to make a sensible decision on it in relation to their goals.

We have not received permission from Noaani to share the quoted post.

That whole discussion aside, can you show me where I went wrong? It would help me at least to understand the context of this discussion if you could show me where specifically we disagree.

I tried to be conservative and state (and cite) all of my assumptions, so I'm hoping it's straightforward to correct. I'm not perfect though, so let me know if anything's unclear and I'll try to resolve it.

My post with my assumptions & citations
My post with the correction to my arithmetic (I figure this is less important than the one with my assumptions.)

---

@Sheeta , You might have a good subject for a Q&A question, here. "Given the size of the world, is the plan for most players to be able to have their own freehold, or will they be more exclusive?" It could be a quick way to settle your worries, if only by making it clear if Intrepid took a different route.