Sorry to burst everyones bubble, but the Wiki Page for the Sector does actually give a naming convention and size, along with the location of the Sector within Lampshade.
Thus, Sector A1-0 is in Region 1, Quadrant Alpha, Sector 0, as established by the Wiki Page.
Thus, no rescaling or change is nessecary, the only thing needed… is to update the Sector Map in the image posted above. So Everyone can calm the Ef down about new stats, they are not needed. Also, I’m of the opinion that a Sector Compass is not needed, as every state would use their own(for example, Emerald just uses North, South, East, and West)
To some people, yes, to others who just want to have a fun Sci Fi RP? It makes zero sense at all and could actually drive away new RP’ers from the canon. Espcially since most probably join looking for a canon similar to a Sci Fi canon they know, like Star Trek, Star Wars or Halo, but instead get a bloated, confusing, and downright fever dreamlike canon that doesn’t seem fun.
I’d say that most things we map are 3D. Maps are in 2D to make them easier to read, and also convenient. I don’t see how making the A1-0 map really adds anything, I feel like that would just make it harder to make use of, especially when trying to add stuff to it
Well, yeah, the plots are going to stay 2D on the map. TEM was saying that he was against the notion of having the plots be in 3D (like physically), or at least I assume that’s what he was saying.
Now to answer some of the questions and concerns regarding this proposal.
I knew about the naming convention proposal that already exists on the wiki and thought it could be improved. The current proposal on the wiki and the community-discussed one that was there before it didn’t fully explain the name A1-0.
The plots have always been 3D, but the map doesn’t show that. The plots have a thickness of 100 ly. With the new naming convention, the thickness is increased to 1000 ly so that the entire galactic disc is covered. The reason for changing the thickness is that it makes very little sense for the nations to e.g. expand 700 ly in one direction but ignore space that is 100 ly above. The sector map or actual RP won’t change due to the increased “3D-ness” of the map.
Regarding the size of plots. If you don’t want your nation to be as large as the plot you’ve chosen, you can add a custom nation size inside your plot that you’ll have sole RP jurisdiction over. The same goes for plot thickness. You don’t have to have your nation extend the whole 1000 ly (just like you don’t have to have your nation extend the 100 ly that all plots currently have). I plan to make the Treecuu nation space not occupy the whole volume of the Treecuu plot, at least not thickness-wise.
The amount of stars and planets increases sharply with this proposed naming convention. That absolutely comes with a set of challenges. It is ultimately the responsibility of RPers not to inflate their numbers as to appear more powerful than others, just like in other canons. I know that many think a very large population by necessity means a powerful state, but I’d argue that this won’t necessarily be true in the future for many reasons. Automatisation, wealth and possibly very different economics might make the population metric of secondary importance. And it might be the case that many worlds won’t have more than a few billion inhabitants. The trend IRL is that as wealth increases, population growth decreases. Likewise, the technology, culture, military strategy etc might be so very different between nations that outnumbering your enemy by 1000:1 might not be a certain win.
Gonna be honest, the reason why I voted “Add more plots” is because I didnt wanna have to re-do math after rescaling,
Iv now realised I haven’t don any math in the first place, and that’s a silly reason anyway.
(Why do I always say thing when it late. May edit this in the morning.)
