No more point in concurrent worlds

[SnuggleSnail]

Sure, but I'm not rly saying it should.

Just that it'd be incredibly easy for a dedicated group of autists to fuck up the entire world in haven, and that those kinds of groups don't exist here because haven's not popular enough.

[Hingle_McCringle]

To return to the original topic of this thread. I would agree that running a concurrent world now along side the current seems fairly pointless if the idea is to impliment chnages from this 16.1 world into the dead world 16. Might as well consider world 16 the new legacy. What mechanics could you impliment to a world that is a year old that would make people go back?

This leads to the next comment regarding what is Haven's End game? Is there actually an end game? I dont think its a tangible thing, Haven end game is completely dependent on the individual players motivations no? Discover everything? Resch the deepest cave level? Be the highest stat (is that even a goal?) See how much of the.comunity you can get to hate you (this transcends the individual world)

If they really want to try this concurrent world experiment then why not end world 16 and do a world 17 and 17.1 and very clearly indicate that world 17.1 will only last 2-3 months and have mechanics to make it less of a grindy. The main world 17 would restart and play out with all the same rules as world 16 stat that it will run for a minimum of 8-12 months. (Put a timer in the UI so people can clearly see how much time before rhe world ends) This way you can justify trying some revolutionary game changes that if they work you have a chance to fold them into a world that hasnt progressed past its death throws. Sure the player base is going to split, but what happens when 17.1 ends? How long until 17.2 starts???? The example would that 17.1, 17.2 etc would in a sense become beta tests for patches into the parent world.

I think that if the second world is actally treated a place for testing then you may not see that big of a split, maybe more likley that players would split their time (which would further slow the progress im the main world). That or you find out everyone flocks to the shorter worlds and just realize this is what people actually want and just do world wipes more often?

The other part to this would be to have the Devs actually set timeliness and goals and keep them which I dont know of possible.....

If it all fails fuck it world 18.

[animary]

"...the dead world 16"

Not dead for me, I'm having a great time.

But this game tries to cater to two disparate groups - the PVP crowd and the rpg crowd.

The former progress to eating sausage and cheese and making metal armor and weapons within a few weeks then stride the countryside seeking victims to kill and villages to raid. In 5-6 months they are crying "This world is dead! Time to reset!". Of course it's "dead", they ran everyone off. They want a new crop of sprucecaps to hunt. To them the map is just a big battlefield.

The latter take their time in the game, building farms and villages and markets. A world lasting 2-3 years or more would be fine. To them the map is a pastoral world of villages and farms with which to trade and socialize. The the world is seldom "dead" for them unless they've explored the entire map.

There is no way to satisfy both groups in one world; any concession to one side will bring howls of protest from the other. But a system of two worlds, one of short duration (to appeal to the PVP players) and one of long duration (to appeal to the rpg crowd) might work.

[Sevenless]

Run it if it pays the server bills. The 100 deep worlders aren't going to make or break the new world experience for everyone else because they're at most 10% of the population. 16.1 probably won't have a deep world community, but that's ok. When 16.1 has run its course we merge the communities again on 17.

Definitely a defense by obscurity situation though. If some faction really wanted to, they could exterminate the W16 playerbase.