Prelude: Happy New World!

[Kaios]

and the situation with the multiple idol setups?

I have no immediate answer to that. Will consider.

if it goes unchanged I'll definitely be building my village(s) like that

[infectedking]

and the situation with the multiple idol setups?

I have no immediate answer to that. Will consider.

if it goes unchanged I'll definitely be building my village(s) like that

lets go 8 village idols and unsiegable, gogogogo

[loftar]

And no I'm all for longer worlds not shorter ones with a mechanic involved to allow the players to choose when to end it rather than only at the devs whim to erase months of work for no good reason

So you do think that a reset for "non-development reasons" (not that there aren't developmental reasons for this reset) may be a good thing, it just can't be a good thing when it's we who do it?

To be honest, having tried the altar idea, I'm actually less sure now that a player-controlled reset mechanic would be a good thing than I was prior to it. It seems to me that, as soon as there's a "risk" that the world may be ending soon, that will cause the vast majority of players to stop playing because of the uncertainty of the future, and even if the threat were more easily averted than in the previous incarnation, I'm not so sure that would be well-liked nonetheless.

lets go 8 village idols and unsiegable, gogogogo

You are quite free to suggest countermeasures. :)

[Redlaw]

I larger distance between village claims might work as a start. Cant work well when you need a good distance between idols.

[Kaios]

So you do think that a reset for "non-development reasons" (not that there aren't developmental reasons for this reset) may be a good thing, it just can't be a good thing when it's we who do it?

Preferably a world would never reset and the end game would just continue to be interesting but when the time comes that player count starts to dwindle and the world becomes stale then there should be a fair mechanic in place to let the players choose whether or not a world ends.

And by development related reasons I mean something more along the lines of the addition of kingdoms (which would have been a better time) or something that can't be changed without a reset like new map generation.

[LostJustice]

So you do think that a reset for "non-development reasons" (not that there aren't developmental reasons for this reset) may be a good thing, it just can't be a good thing when it's we who do it?

Preferably a world would never reset and the end game would just continue to be interesting but when the time comes that player count starts to dwindle and the world becomes stale then there should be a fair mechanic in place to let the players choose whether or not a world ends.

But then whats the fun of the world start rush with everyone rushing?

Plus I can see the dev reasons why new world with development changes > old world stale.

Not to mention majority of people who die the first time want a reset immediately.

[kilakan]

Sweet, and here I was thinking I wasn't gonna get what I really wanted for christmas!

[Teleskop]

I CANT BELIEVE IT

[Kaios]

But then whats the fun of the world start rush with everyone rushing?

Plus I can see the dev reasons why new world with development changes > old world stale.

Not to mention majority of people who die the first time want a reset immediately.

I am not sure what you mean, I'm of the opinion early game is one of the best aspects of the game but it's not fair to everyone else who doesn't quit after the first few weeks/months to lose all their investment just because some people get bored early on or die and quit.

[loftar]

Preferably a world would never reset

I very much agree. As I wrote in another thread:

Let's just say that I very much agree that "a"/"the" world should be permanent, in the end, but that is with the assumption that further development (which may happen during world 10, mind you) has led to a game where resets have little (or ideally no) upsides whatsoever, which is not the present situation.

there should be a fair mechanic in place to let the players choose whether or not a world ends.

I'm sure you didn't just ignore the part of my previous post where I expounded on this exact point, right?

And by development related reasons I mean something more along the lines of the addition of kingdoms (which would have been a better time) or something that can't be changed without a reset like new map generation.

On the other hand, you just previously argued that kingdom things "should be tested before a reset". One might argue that that's what we've done. I'm sure you'll argue that they aren't perfect yet.