You killed this game yourselves, devs.

[CaptainMidget]

IMO the game isn't ready for advertising yet, because there is a crucial question that's been here since '09 and there hasn't been a hint of a good answer so far, and that question is siege. It's a cornerstone of the game, and as such sets the tone for the whole game. No sense in advertising if you don't know what you're advertising.

Just create a siege mega-thread and get people to put in all these ideas. One will sparkle as the logical choice.

[jorb]

I've been watching the player numbers very closely. They went from 350-600 to 250-450 in a month or so. You are definitely bleeding players.

Sure, but that is also to be expected after any launch. The Boost->Drop->Stabilization pattern has always been consistent over all the games we've made, world resets, &c. The question is where the stabler levels eventually turn out to lie, and if we can at some point resume genuine baseline growth. That last question is largely dependent on our performance, I suspect, which is also where I want to focus my attention.

I think my energy is better spent working on and thinking about the game, rather than on advertising, and I think doing that is also the best advertising I can generate.

IMO the game isn't ready for advertising yet, because there is a crucial question that's been here since '09 and there hasn't been a hint of a good answer so far, and that question is siege. It's a cornerstone of the game, and as such sets the tone for the whole game. No sense in advertising if you don't know what you're advertising.

Some truth here certainly, though I think the problem is probably slightly broader than that. I think the issue is -- more generally -- that the game doesn't adequately support genuine and large-scale social organization. We have begun formulating plans on the topic, but it is a very delicate question, and I want to -- uncharacteristically -- anchor it well with "the community" before we run off and do shit. I'll be doing a writeup at some point.

Imagine, if you will, the great keeps in WoW, or some other NPC-driven MMO. Huge, sprawling cities that a new player can wander around in freely, visit, and perhaps even spawn in. I'd like there to be that here, except organized by players. Clearly not possible under present mechanics, but necessarily impossible? I want to doubt that.

[FireFox]

Huge, sprawling cities

Yay, confirmed!

Clearly not possible under present mechanics, but necessarily impossible? I want to doubt that.

... after wipe

[Haba]

and I want to -- uncharacteristically -- anchor it well with "the community" before we run off and do shit..

Wake me up, I must be dreaming.

[ShinyStone]

I've been watching the player numbers very closely. They went from 350-600 to 250-450 in a month or so. You are definitely bleeding players.

Sure, but that is also to be expected after any launch. The Boost->Drop->Stabilization pattern has always been consistent over all the games we've made, world resets, &c. The question is where the stabler levels eventually turn out to lie, and if we can at some point resume genuine baseline growth. That last question is largely dependent on our performance, I suspect, which is also where I want to focus my attention.

The 350-600 was your stable population, after the post-launch drama. As they say, denial is not just a river in Egypt.

[jordancoles]

Imagine, if you will, the great keeps in WoW, or some other NPC-driven MMO. Huge, sprawling cities that a new player can wander around in freely, visit, and perhaps even spawn in. I'd like there to be that here, except organized by players. Clearly not possible under present mechanics, but necessarily impossible? I want to doubt that.

Darkfall has an interesting setup

Chaos cities.

Basically, there are unprotected "cities" spread out across the world map, perhaps one per section of the map (NW, NE, SW, SE)
These cities have crafting stations, a bank, and a bind point to teleport to like a hearthfire
Anyone can use these cities and live out of them if they choose to, but there is always the chance that you can be killed if you're crafting and the wrong group shows up at the city, so in general it's better to live out of somewhere that's walled

I don't think an unprotected city would work with this game's community, but the idea of a general safe city for everyone to use is a nice idea

Personally, I don't see a problem with more small pockets of safe land for players to meet and socialize, just don't allow for players to re-enter the safezone when they're locked into combat or if they're redhanded. And of course, you should be able to summon a player who is hiding out in the safezone to the edge of that safe zone

Boston was a nice thing.
One aspect that I would change however is the ability to teleport to the safezone whenever you wish.
Boston in Slaem was used as a free crafting station and refuge for AFKers, which isn't really ideal. Walking there might even that out a bit better.
It provides a set location for trade and you'd have the option to come and go whenever you feel safe enough to do so.

Keep some basic crafting stations, do not allow for instant travel to the safe area, and perhaps add a marker to the corner of your gamescreen that directs you to the closest safe area (like the party arrows that we currently have)

Add social experiences like a card table, a chess/checkers board and perhaps a message board which links to the most recent updates
Just make it feel "homey" and people will enjoy it

Sure, there's Valhalla, but no one is lining up to kill themselves for a bit of social interaction

It's about as carebear as it gets, but people like having a spot where they can feel safe and talk with people outside of their own isolated group of villagers

[jorb]

The 350-600 was your stable population, after the post-launch drama. As they say, denial is not just a river in Egypt.

... wat? Obviously that was not stable, since it has clearly dropped off from that, which is precisely the topic at hand.

[Potjeh]

WTF are you smoking, Coles? Boston was easily the worst thing about Salem.

Anyway, I'm quite happy to hear we feel the same on this, Jorb. I was just singling out siege because when it comes to civilization building it's really condicio sine qua non. Every other social feature will be useless as long as it remains impossible for a faction to enforce law and order in it's area. Law alone is not sufficient, as you say, but it's the first stone upon which the rest can be built. Starting with convenient trade in the form of stalls that are actually usable, but the list of features that would serve to develop true civilization is inexhaustible, so it's not really something that can be done in a single megaupdate, but rather something to continuously work on throughout the game's development. Hence singling out siege, which has a much better defined scope.

[hazzor]

forced peace areas suck, player made ones are much more fun.

[Teleskop]

safe town systems as seen in fallout online would be neat for hafen