World 6

[Rhiannon]

[quote="borka"]Biggest errors of yours: low player count because of lag - the highest player count was 1500+ with "new" LP system ... and making this post
quote]

I have to agree, I've played since just before the end of world 1. I was a bit tepish about the LP change but got quickly ok with it. It's the LAG that has shocked and dismayed me since returning from a year, or so, break. 30 seconds play, 20 second freeze, 20 second play, 30 second freeze...and whew that gets old fast..lmao. SO yeah, it's the lag not the LP.

[Oddity]

Glory to W3 Ravenholm.

[borka]

yeah at it's roads i started my long journey at a deep dark night into Haven - they led me safe

[Ogrim]

Yeah, a new world would be good.

I've got plenty invested in W6, but I can't play in this lag. Build W7 and tell everyone that it will only last 1 year... you'll still have lots of players.

Please bring H&H back into playable condition. All the other sandbox games pale by comparison...

[Rhiannon]

Glory to W3 Ravenholm.

HooRahhh Glorious indeed. Wonderful memories of a wonderful game.

Yeah, a new world would be good.

I've got plenty invested in W6, but I can't play in this lag. Build W7 and tell everyone that it will only last 1 year... you'll still have lots of players.

Please bring H&H back into playable condition. All the other sandbox games pale by comparison...

Perfect sandbox would never have a time limit, that's he point, a sandbox world's evolution over decades. BUT you're right, it does need to be playable. Nothing before nor since has been as unique as H&H, if it were just made "Final" and left alone in a playable condition it would be heaven...

[zacty]

eh, ive always liked the haven model, keep the world until there is need for a reset. a set time or even predictable time for a reset would honestly just kill the game for me. i love resets, even whenever ive spent months and months getting everything the way i want it resets are always welcome, but setting in stone or even making it somewhat foreseeable would just kill it by adding in a whole new aspect

[TeckXKnight]

eh, ive always liked the haven model, keep the world until there is need for a reset. a set time or even predictable time for a reset would honestly just kill the game for me. i love resets, even whenever ive spent months and months getting everything the way i want it resets are always welcome, but setting in stone or even making it somewhat foreseeable would just kill it by adding in a whole new aspect

Having a timer also diminishes the value of things. Cattle and chickens just aren't worth it unless you can raise them for 6+ months. Worse would be when the end days are nigh and everyone just abandons the world or begins raiding for the sake of raiding. All rational strategy is lost in place of as much senseless havoc as possible.

This would effectively hardcap a lot of things too. As you can only harvest crops so many times in a set period of time, they would attain a point where they could never go higher.

[zacty]

yep, also i think it would diminish a large potential for a greater population "oh, the world is ending in a couple of months... why bother?" kinda thing. overall not a very good idea

[eliminator]

"oh, everybody has wall bashers and uber warriors... why bother?"
I waited for world 5 reset because of this.

[TeckXKnight]

"oh, everybody has wall bashers and uber warriors... why bother?"
I waited for world 5 reset because of this.

This is a very weak argument and I'm glad that I never had to interact with you in-game.