New World - Dual Server plan still happening?

[Nightdawg]

classic 2 months of patches to get players trust and gold subs then drop development for a year

IDK what you're talking about, they don't need to "get my trust". New world = instant 180d sub. Simple as that.

Literally the reason we went from 40+ patches (with actual content) per year to 10ish patches (that could really be just 3 patches) per year
xD

[AlexNT]

classic 2 months of patches to get players trust and gold subs then drop development for a year

IDK what you're talking about, they don't need to "get my trust". New world = instant 180d sub. Simple as that.

Literally the reason we went from 40+ patches (with actual content) per year to 10ish patches (that could really be just 3 patches) per year
xD

And new worlds are still just once per year. I might have to rethink my strategy.

[Genabeton]

You are confusing the game or gaming and the absorption of content. And when most of the content is absorbed, the real game begins. Studios and developers only make a field for the game, and the game is made by players and their imagination.

You're confusing game with larping.

Game begins with predefined starting conditions, and it ends when its rules dictate that it ends. Typically, when alotted time or turns run out, or a victory / loss / draw condition is achieved. Players can do better or worse in a game based on their skill. There is often an in-game metric (sometimes called "score") that determines how well a player did. One of a definitive properties of a "game" is that players gain skill as they play, and do better in subsequent rounds. Historically, games existed to teach important practical skills through repetitive "playing".


Larping is endless and aimless. Whether someone does better or worse at larping is subjective.

I should have said right away that I don’t know english deeply enough to confidently express complex thoughts and that I write through a machine translator.
And so. I'm talking about the game in the broadest sense of the word. It's like playing with words, playing a musical instrument, improvising, playing the rays of the sun in the reflection of water. And anyway, as the classic wrote: "What is our life? The game!".
You are big fans of the game of chess. It is wonderful. But why recreate the board and pieces for each match? If you want to reset yourself all the time, reset yourself individually. There is no need to condemn the whole world to this.
Only when the world exists indefinitely long time, will the real big game begin and it will be possible to see who is who.
As for larping, if I understood the meaning of this word correctly, this is a separate topic for psychiatric research.

[AlexNT]

And anyway, as the classic wrote: "What is our life? The game!".

The classic you're referring to was writing in Russian, where "game" and "acting" literally are the same word ("игра"), and therefore present an ambiguity. And as he wrote that he was piggibacking off of another classic, whose words were "All the world's a stage, And all the men and women merely players". The second quote is very obviously about "acting" (aka "larping"), as Shakespeare likens the World to theater. Illustrates my previous point about confusing "game" and "larping" perfectly, imo.

Now let us turn to "Oxford languages" (as given by Google):

game
noun
1.
a form of play or sport, especially a competitive one played according to rules and decided by skill, strength, or luck.
2.
a complete episode or period of play, ending in a definite result.
"a baseball game".

If you think about the first games humans played, or if you look at how animals play (e.g. dogs and cats), a "game" is always a repetitive activity, meant to build up skill / experience in a safe(er) / easier environment in preparation for the "real thing", originally most commonly -- hunting. Today, the "preparation" part is mostly gone, but our animal instincts still compel us to spend our free time in "games" (we find games enjoyable, because originally they helped us survive). Therefore the repetitive nature (rounds), skill / experience building, and competitiveness/scoring -- all remain important parts of what a "game" (not play / acting, aka larping) is.

"Emergent gameplay" is mostly a persistent myth in the gaming industry. I've watched for 20 years different studios and projects peddle the idea, only to consistently and firmly fall on their face in the end. I'm not buying that shit anymore. And since you like classics, here's one for you: "When a community has no color differentiation of pants, it has no goal, and when there is no goal...".

TLDR: those of us requesting 3 mo resets -- want to play one common multiplayer "game" (according to common rules), not to play a "performance" (inside of which some will end up inventing their own individual "games" that they will essentially play solo, like you're alluding to). Simple as that.

[dafels]

they will go onto their 3 month summer vacation soon, if it's not announced by the end of may it's not looking good bros

[Genabeton]

And anyway, as the classic wrote: "What is our life? The game!".

The classic you're referring to was writing in Russian, where "game" and "acting" literally are the same word ("игра"), and therefore present an ambiguity. And as he wrote that he was piggibacking off of another classic, whose words were "All the world's a stage, And all the men and women merely players". The second quote is very obviously about "acting" (aka "larping"), as Shakespeare likens the World to theater. Illustrates my previous point about confusing "game" and "larping" perfectly, imo.

Now let us turn to "Oxford languages" (as given by Google):

game
noun
1.
a form of play or sport, especially a competitive one played according to rules and decided by skill, strength, or luck.
2.
a complete episode or period of play, ending in a definite result.
"a baseball game".

If you think about the first games humans played, or if you look at how animals play (e.g. dogs and cats), a "game" is always a repetitive activity, meant to build up skill / experience in a safe(er) / easier environment in preparation for the "real thing", originally most commonly -- hunting. Today, the "preparation" part is mostly gone, but our animal instincts still compel us to spend our free time in "games" (we find games enjoyable, because originally they helped us survive). Therefore the repetitive nature (rounds), skill / experience building, and competitiveness/scoring -- all remain important parts of what a "game" (not play / acting, aka larping) is.

"Emergent gameplay" is mostly a persistent myth in the gaming industry. I've watched for 20 years different studios and projects peddle the idea, only to consistently and firmly fall on their face in the end. I'm not buying that shit anymore. And since you like classics, here's one for you: "When a community has no color differentiation of pants, it has no goal, and when there is no goal...".

TLDR: those of us requesting 3 mo resets -- want to play one common multiplayer "game" (according to common rules), not to play a "performance" (inside of which some will end up inventing their own individual "games" that they will essentially play solo, like you're alluding to). Simple as that.

You are picking on words, this happens when there is nothing to answer on the merits. The words that "all life is a game" were said by a gambler and refer to luck. For Shakespeare, it was relevant to analyze acting and hypocrisy, which is also a game. I am talking about the game in a broad sense, so both options are suitable. If you resort to such a detailed analysis of my words, be kind enough to analyze the entire text, otherwise I will not understand whether you have missed the whole point or are ignoring it. Your arguments are based on some rules of the game havenandhearth that do not exist and cannot exist, and on the fact that this is correct because it was like this before and this is how it is accepted. Here I refrain from commenting. The quote about social inequality that you highlighted in bold, what is it for? I suppose you think there will be no goal? Calm down, for you everything will be the same as it was, you just won't need to reinvent the wheel every time you want to ride. And the most important thing is that the game will have a future. I am talking about one permanent world for everyone, in which everyone will be able to reset themselves at least every three weeks or, over many years of leisurely play, build something truly interesting that will be a landmark for new players, for example. Thank you for your attention, AlexNT, but, I'm sorry, I can no longer take you seriously.
PS: Herman's aria "What is our life" from composer Pyotr Tchaikovsky's opera "The Queen of Spades"
based on the story of the same name by Alexander Pushkin.
"What is our life? A game!
Good and evil, only dreams.
Work, honesty, fairy tales for women,
Who is right, who is happy here, friends,
Today you, and tomorrow me.
What is true - death is one,
Like the shore of the sea of ​​vanity.
She is a refuge for all of us,
Who is dearer to her of us, friends,
Today you, and tomorrow me.
So give up the fight,
Catch the moment of luck,
Let the loser cry,
Let the loser cry,
Cursing his fate."

[AlexNT]

I'm sorry, I can no longer take you seriously.

Wow, that's some serious push to "win" an argument for a non-competitive larper.

[animary]

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.

A good compromise. Some players, the combat oriented ones, are usually quite efficient building their characters, they have high q cheese, bronze armor, knarrs, and massive stats within a month and go looking for folks to attack. They're usually bored within four months and quit, awaiting a new world. Other players, the rpg crowd, play a more leisurely game, enjoying growing their characters, building a farm/village, exploring, trading, etc. They would prefer a world of at least a year, maybe two.

So concurrent worlds, one restarting every four to six months, the other lasting 18-24 months, would cater to all; no doubt some would play both worlds.

Personally I hate the first month of a world. A dreary slog of remembering to do everything once to get discovery - chop one of every tree, eat one of every fruit and berry, catch one of every fish, chip one of every rock, etc. All while trying to steer clear of other players and make the necessary components for a pali. I'm just starting to enjoy the world about the time many have tired of it and quit.

[Genabeton]

Imagine that you know the date of your death. That the doctor tells you that you have a year to live, two at most. Imagine that you got a job, but on such terms that in two years everything you have earned and achieved will be destroyed and you will start over. What goals will you be able to set for yourself and will you be able to think about the future.
I trolled the topic with the second server, suggesting three months, it was sarcasm, and you took it and are discussing it seriously.
I feel like Neo from the Matrix, confronting the all-consuming public consciousness.
I would like the developers to imagine what a wipe is, that someone will completely delete the entire code of the game and they will have to rewrite it from scratch for each wipe, so as not to get bored. This game may be called Haven't and Hurt.
I have nothing to do with pacifism, or communism, or any other ism. When I play a computer game, I play the role of a person playing a computer game. I do not discuss, do not argue, I only try to bring to consciousness.
There is no and cannot be any compromise here. All worlds with wipes are considered hopeless, doomed, sentenced, condemned, stillborn. Only one permanent world can have a goal, keep history in itself, be always alive in the present and have a future.
P.S. A good haven, completely destroyed by each autumn storm.

[Hingle_McCringle]

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.

I believe this entire argument is moot because you have no idea what Jorb and Loftar are actually going to do because I don’t thing they do. If the intent is to have the current world live on for an indeterminate timeframe but also start a new concurrent one then you will have no fracture. As those who have left are not going back to the old world they have already left waiting for the new. The only fracture you will get is the players who want long worlds will stay in the existing those will leave it for a new don’t really want to be in the current world anyway, they are just there honing their knowledge for the next world.