New World - Dual Server plan still happening?

[Crest]

Could we get some clarification as to if the 2 world system is still planned to happen on schedule? Because we should be coming up on that date now.
Hopefully it is because it's a good idea and it was met with a positive reception for the most part. There were a few people saying it would split the community, but that's retarded.

>176 hearthling playing
See this number? I see this same number time and time again a few months after a world has been around. That's about were things settle, and it'll remain somewhere in that region until a new world begins. A new world usually brings in upwards of ten times those numbers.
What I'm getting at here is that the claim that the playerbase will be split is just bullshit. Players like me come, play for a bit, then leave for one reason or another and we won't rejoin into a pre-existing world no matter what. You can't say you're splitting the playerbase when we would never log back in until a new world begins anyway. New worlds aren't divisive; on the contrary they're the great unifier.
But for the people that do want a world with a bit more longevity, you can give them it too in the world we have now, let than world run for much longer. That was originally the plan anyway, no?

Stick with the original plan IMO.
One server (this current one) that hosts a long-lasting world and a second server that hosts a world with a shorter life span. I guarantee this will make everybody happy.
Please make the map bigger this time though, I quit earlier than usual this world because the map was so fucking small that I couldn't find anywhere with no other people and I spent the first 3-4 days mapping the place out to be sure. Also go back to central spawning... the random spawns of this world were a disaster for that reason I've just gave. I'd much rather we all started in one compact location and then explored outwards, choosing how close/far you want to be from the masses. If you enable random spawns, you completely ruin the feeling of exploration because wherever you go someone is already in the area. I implore you to consider this.
A good chunk of the fun (IMO anyway) comes from finding an ideal location to settle. If you're unhappy with your location and simply cannot find somewhere you actually want to settle, you're much more likely to drop the game quicker. I had a great start this world for the most part, but I hated the map and hated where I settled so I dipped out fast. I attribute it solely to the tiny world and random spawns and no whirlpools leading to a place devoid of people (again due to random spawns...).

[Fostik]

Persistent old world with slow mechanics, and temporary fast worlds to experiment with mechanics to me seems like a proper way to do games.
Really hope it'll be something like that, I would even experiment with village structure and team size.

[Kaios]

>176 hearthling playing
See this number? I see this same number time and time again a few months after a world has been around. That's about were things settle, and it'll remain somewhere in that region until a new world begins. A new world usually brings in upwards of ten times those numbers.
What I'm getting at here is that the claim that the playerbase will be split is just bullshit. Players like me come, play for a bit, then leave for one reason or another and we won't rejoin into a pre-existing world no matter what. You can't say you're splitting the playerbase when we would never log back in until a new world begins anyway. New worlds aren't divisive; on the contrary they're the great unifier.
But for the people that do want a world with a bit more longevity, you can give them it too in the world we have now, let than world run for much longer. That was originally the plan anyway, no?

I don't know man, the player base is so tiny that I think fracturing the active players between two servers is probably a genuine concern of theirs.

The game is fairly unknown even with its release to steam and there aren't a lot of new players coming in on a regular basis.

Check out this video for example: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NlbbZc0jhL0
Out of 250 titles this game isn't mentioned once, but of course failed clone Life is Feudal made it on the list. The marketing/advertising is non-existent.

[Fostik]

player base is so tiny that I think fracturing the active players between two servers is probably a genuine concern of theirs.

Following that logic no bridge should ever be built, as no real cars crossing the river, hence none needed.

[Crest]

I don't know man, the player base is so tiny that I think fracturing the active players between two servers is probably a genuine concern of theirs.

The game is fairly unknown even with its release to steam and there aren't a lot of new players coming in on a regular basis.

At the end of the day there's no way around it. There are too many players like me who enjoy the early/mid game but then get burned out when the real grind starts and end up dropping the game. After I've dropped the game, I never rejoin mid world. It's just not the same as a fresh new world, all the cool locations are already taken, and the map just looks ugly with all the empty bases everywhere, you feel so far behind (because you are) and the constant thought of 'this is a waste of time, the worlds probably ending soon anyway' is always in the forefront of your mind.
What that means is that the lion's share of the player base quit after a few months then we're stuck in limbo wanting to play but not wanting to join an already established world, so we're just sat here waiting for a new world to come along... whenever that may be. Because of that I'd argue that we're technically already split just on account of most of us being on standby waiting and not playing.

Besides there's plenty of benefits doing things this way with the whole 2 parallel world approach. The devs will have more freedom to try some of the more radical changes they have in mind on the world with a shorter life span, comfortable in the fact that if things go to shit and don't work out that they're not doing it on a world which usually is around for around 2 years so there would be no long lasting damage for trying said change. Try it out, if it sucks scrap it next world.

See right now we have 2 types of players. One that prefers worlds to stick around for longer and one that likes the thrill of the early/mid game (which I think this game has one of the best early/mid game loops). Both players currently are not getting what they want but that can change.
I think it's absurd that I have to wait like months/years just to hop into a new game when I get the itch to play again. This is the only game where I have to do that. I'm usually left waiting for like 8 months just to get another shot at playing the part of the game I really like. And I'm not alone on this, statistics prove undoubtably that people love the early game, they like the mid game and they hate the 'endgame', it's why we have these huge surges of players gushing in during a new world and then quickly dropping off. We've had this same loop going on since forever.

[Halbertz]

get burned out when the real grind starts and end up dropping the game

The game is out of content after 2 months of active playing (8th level). Imagine if you could do all the content in WoW in 2 months, and everything left after that is daily quests (collect 15 dung) that give you 1 stat. No wonder most of the playerbase choose to play a bit on every restart and jump out as soon as that notorious endgame content appears.

[gravesmerch]

wild guess, but I think players who reach mine level 8 in two months is not the average experience, majority quits before reaching a palisade, or when default client lags a little on their low end computers

[Kaios]

player base is so tiny that I think fracturing the active players between two servers is probably a genuine concern of theirs.

Following that logic no bridge should ever be built, as no real cars crossing the river, hence none needed.

That's not really the way I was looking at it. In my opinion a more apt comparison would be like, a starving village decides the best course of action is to send away the farmers in search of new lands.

[Nightdawg]

There's a reason other games similar to hafen have multiple servers that wipe at different dates, and even when there are too many servers, the players don't split between all of them but stick to a few populated ones.

I doubt "players will be split" is a valid argument when there are 150 online now, but 1500 on a fresh wipe.

[Robben_DuMarsch]

There's a reason other games similar to hafen have multiple servers that wipe at different dates, and even when there are too many servers, the players don't split between all of them but stick to a few populated ones.

I doubt "players will be split" is a valid argument when there are 150 online now, but 1500 on a fresh wipe.

Agreed. I'd personally enjoy a 3 month wipe server with a parallel traditional 12-15 month wipe server.

I've heard others argue for other figures though, but 3 months seems like a reasonable amount of time for content completion and when meaningful combat falls off, although trade does live slightly longer, it probably would have less reason to do so with shorter wipe windows.