For Terraria, I can host if that's okay. I can also go ahead and generate some fresh worlds beforehand, mainly to make sure we don't have open caves/huge holes in the ground right near the spawn point. I usually tend to trash those worlds and generate a different one if I get that sort of thing, since I prefer worlds with mostly flat-ish land near the spawn.
For world size, would you prefer Small or Large (or Medium, I guess, though I've never bothered with those)? There are pros and cons to each.
Small worlds still seem pretty huge to me, regardless, but with that said, there tends to be less stuff in them or, rather, fewer instances of the same stuff. Perhaps less variety of stuff, as well. It would be easier to find the floating sky islands on a Small world, though there would be fewer of them (meaning less chances for sky island loot, unless we just jumped to different worlds specifically for the purposes of farming sky islands or whatever). Also, with a Small world, we'd be able to get to the hell/underworld layer and activate Hardmode a lot sooner. Though whether we'd be strong enough to defeat the Wall of Flesh when we got there is another matter entirely, of course.
With Large worlds, it would take longer to reach the stuff that's farther toward the edge of the map (like to the oceans on either end, or the dungeon, or the jungle, etc. when going horizontally, or to the cavern or underworld layers when going downward), but there tends to be more to each of those when you do get to them. You'll also be more likely to see larger swaths of the same biome in each (e.g. more contiguous forest, etc. especially near the spawn point, etc.) Also, with Large worlds, there tends to be more of the unique landmarks/landscapes, like sky islands or giant trees or giant bee hives and the like.
I guess basically the choice is between more variety, but with more travel time to get to said variety, versus easier to find and get to the stuff that is there, even if there won't be as much of it.
When I'm playing solo, I tend to like to start on a Small world, but then eventually "settle" on a Large world. Right now, in my current playthrough, I'm still on a Small. That said, any size is fine with me for multiplayer.
And with all that said, it's not like I can't just make at least one of each and we can jump back and forth as we want. Besides that, we'd probably want at least one each of Corruption and Crimson worlds, as well, whatever the world size.
Also, from what I understand, multiplayer performance/lag shouldn't be affected by world size, at least as far as network issues go. But Large worlds would use more memory, I guess, so that could potentially be an issue.
no subject
For world size, would you prefer Small or Large (or Medium, I guess, though I've never bothered with those)? There are pros and cons to each.
Small worlds still seem pretty huge to me, regardless, but with that said, there tends to be less stuff in them or, rather, fewer instances of the same stuff. Perhaps less variety of stuff, as well. It would be easier to find the floating sky islands on a Small world, though there would be fewer of them (meaning less chances for sky island loot, unless we just jumped to different worlds specifically for the purposes of farming sky islands or whatever). Also, with a Small world, we'd be able to get to the hell/underworld layer and activate Hardmode a lot sooner. Though whether we'd be strong enough to defeat the Wall of Flesh when we got there is another matter entirely, of course.
With Large worlds, it would take longer to reach the stuff that's farther toward the edge of the map (like to the oceans on either end, or the dungeon, or the jungle, etc. when going horizontally, or to the cavern or underworld layers when going downward), but there tends to be more to each of those when you do get to them. You'll also be more likely to see larger swaths of the same biome in each (e.g. more contiguous forest, etc. especially near the spawn point, etc.) Also, with Large worlds, there tends to be more of the unique landmarks/landscapes, like sky islands or giant trees or giant bee hives and the like.
I guess basically the choice is between more variety, but with more travel time to get to said variety, versus easier to find and get to the stuff that is there, even if there won't be as much of it.
When I'm playing solo, I tend to like to start on a Small world, but then eventually "settle" on a Large world. Right now, in my current playthrough, I'm still on a Small. That said, any size is fine with me for multiplayer.
And with all that said, it's not like I can't just make at least one of each and we can jump back and forth as we want. Besides that, we'd probably want at least one each of Corruption and Crimson worlds, as well, whatever the world size.
Also, from what I understand, multiplayer performance/lag shouldn't be affected by world size, at least as far as network issues go. But Large worlds would use more memory, I guess, so that could potentially be an issue.