mvgulik wrote:What seem to be the potential options:
1) They start a 16.2 world (with some additional minor new stuff). Which would leave 16.0 world as is.
2) They start a 17.0 world (or perhaps even test start a 17.1 world first). Which would include major new stuff.
Here they still could:
2a) keep world 16.0 alive ... in case they might need to test how 2 different (code wise) game-servers workout. (16.0 & 16.1 are probably both using the same main server/game code, with some time tweaks ofc.)
2b) Kill world 16.0. (new world would than be a 17.0 case)
3) This is an option that makes no sense at all. They start both a 17.0 and 17.1 world.
Time will tell. ... I bet they take option 3.
Good list of options there. Since they now have tested two worlds running simultaneously, they know how to do it going forward. They have already tested your pt 2a. It all comes down to cost of course and what they might gain from it. I am not sure what the results are from 16.1 and 16, or how many players there have been on each one. Was W16,1 successfull? I dunno - I never set foot on that world. Did you all had fun?
Keeping two worlds running at the same time solves so many problems. Far too much work perhaps to spawn two new worlds. Since we already have W16 I do not see why it could not continue.