'New World' concept merged more cohesively into the lore

[Ferinex]

World resets are already steeped in some amount of game lore, and come in an expected fashion to players. However, there is a forced and meta feel to it that seems detrimental. The maturation of characters and industries in the game is a significant aspect of the gameplay. Instead of completely resetting the server, introduce a "new world" in the same way Europeans discovered the Americas, when such time becomes appropriate? This way we preserve some aspects of the old world industries and maturation that has already occurred while also opening up brand new fresh prospects for those who are interested in getting it out the mud. Migrate or start fresh in the new world, but allow that Columbian exchange in a way, and use that cataclysmic event as an opportunity to change and introduce whatever new game mechanics you had on the bench. This already exists in some respects, in that we could leave our starting continent to settle untouched lands, but those lands exist from the beginning of the world. This would instead be a new introduction to the game, a new continent, added onto the existing world, carrying with it new content and maybe important gameplay mechanic changes, but the exchange back and forth should be controlled and incorporated into the game itself as lore.

I would love to hear others thoughts, but especially the proprietors thoughts, on this subject. There should be a cleaner solution than simply resetting the server every year or 2, now that the game has matured so heavily. Industries take longer to develop and interlink at economically interesting levels than a year or two allows.

[DoctorCookie]

I think it is a good idea but, as you said, what you bring would need to be limited in some way. Perhaps you could have industry "milestones" that, once achieved, allowed you to "lock in" a tool level. For example some combination of mine level reached and items produced would allow you to bring a q200 anvil. Possibly have quests involved. There would need to be a cap involved so it was not unending.

[Vigilance]

current absolute worst thing about this game is the fact that you reach "top" ql within a couple months of tryhard. don't make it any worse by making it any easier to hit endgame and give up.

the only thing that wouldnt be insanely detrimental to bring world-to-world is credos and theres still arguments to be made against that.

[Vesena]

The one thing I think might be fun to carry over between worlds that doesn't seem like a balance issue would be certain rituals that apply weight to where the first character on your account burns into the next world. Like "In a flower meadow within walking distance of a mountain" or "In the south-east corner on the coastline."

[Ferinex]

current absolute worst thing about this game is the fact that you reach "top" ql within a couple months of tryhard. don't make it any worse by making it any easier to hit endgame and give up.

the only thing that wouldnt be insanely detrimental to bring world-to-world is credos and theres still arguments to be made against that.

I don't see reaching high q as endgame, which is I suppose why my view and yours differ. I am all about market and economic development, and realm development including politics and conflict. Those things still have not happened to any large degree in this current world. The game goal now at this point is different than the game was at world start. 'High q' as you put it has no endgame as long as competition exists. Quality itself is an abstraction of historical player investment in an industry... like a gradual advancement of technology as happens IRL. It would take years for an active trading economy to develop, and is dependent on a larger player base. Having a world in the state it is currently is more conducive to attracting a larger player base. If you took 2000 new players and injected them into a brand new fresh world, versus injecting them into the world as it exists now, my hunch is that far more of them would stick around in the latter case. The game is simply easier to get established in when there are already other established players, villages, industries, barter stands, inventories, etc, than it is when you need to flesh out every single industry yourself just to do the one or two things you actually wanted to do (make cheese, raise horses, brew beer, whatever it was). At this point in this world, a new player could easily talk their way into building out a brewery for instance, without ever even needing to mine or log or even build the building themselves if they didn't want to. They could then focus solely on brewing extremely good quality beverages, bottling them, and distributing them. That isn't possible in the first 6 months or more of the world.

[Vigilance]

I don't see reaching high q as endgame, which is I suppose why my view and yours differ.

i had to completely check out after reading this because i realized you're about to start writing to me about how larp and community projects are the end game when that is a nauseating dissenting opinion from the norm

Having a world in the state it is currently is more conducive to attracting a larger player base. If you took 2000 new players and injected them into a brand new fresh world, versus injecting them into the world as it exists now, my hunch is that far more of them would stick around in the latter case.

you are simply insane, because this is very outside the norm and a very interestingly wrong take. you can literally look at the player counts directly relating to world age/"endgame reached" factors, and you can look at other games with similar-ish concepts (i know at least Escape from Tarkov is a great example, as significantly less people want to play later in to a wipe, and even less of those people want to start later in a wipe when their "competition" will be many leagues ahead of them)

i think new players getting out of a new world rush is less to do with "wow the world isnt established enough for me yet, huh!" and more to do with "Oh my god there are 900 bloodthirsty murderers that have been roused from their crypts."

t this point in this world, a new player could easily talk their way into building out a brewery for instance, without ever even needing to mine or log or even build the building themselves if they didn't want to.

you're either playing a completely different game than me (literally, not metaphorically) or have time traveled from a bygone era of Northern Kingdom larp.

[Ferinex]

Huh weird! We must be, the one I'm playing is an online roleplaying game called Haven & Hearth. What's the one you're playing called? That must be where the confusion stems from. I can't imagine someone would get so frazzled about roleplaying (live action nonetheless!) in an online roleplaying game. Of course we differ also on how much we invest our emotional stability in how other people play games. Have a nice day!

[telum12]

[...] I am all about market and economic development, and realm development including politics and conflict. Those things still have not happened to any large degree in this current world. [...]

Most factions have stopped playing a while ago. Most markets are dead. Population numbers are way down. Why do you think another year will make anything happen?

Idk maybe I'm misunderstanding your point, it's somewhat confusing to me what you're actually asking for. Agree with Vigi that this "le larp" argument is w/e.