New world

[Atamzsiktrop]

Obviously, that's why if they reset now they have a few months to work on the game, add some (a lot) of content and then they won't have to worry about worlds becoming dead after 3 months, while actually having a decent playerbase. :]

[jorb]

So... world reset every two weeks?

Are you afraid to accept the fact that your game lacks content for long lasting worlds? At least for now it certainly does.

...? No? I do not deny that there is a problem. I just do not see much of a solution in frequent world resets.

[Hasta]

@jorb: we shouldn't be talking about "world resets on a regular basis", and most of us aren't. The game changes rapidly (in comparison), which says a lot about developers being good at what they do, but establishing an imminent reset for each world, be it 2 weeks (har har) or a year, kinda totally modifies the gaming experience. Players would have a deadline; they would plan their efforts in game to concentrate maximum output of activity on last days, maybe weeks. That's when all the wars will happen, all the drama and a second spike of activity (first being the world start). Also, a lot of people would be just hanging on forum waiting for new world to start along with everybody else. To summarize, an established schedule of world resets will add and substract a lot from gameplay, and it is not a momentary decision, it should be well-thought and maybe (as suggested on this very forum) tested for, like, 6 months with 3 worlds being reset at 2 months time, with considerably smaller map, running simultaneously with the server we have now (I hope your server allows it).

The thing we SHOULD be talking about in this thread, I believe, is THIS particular world being reset. It started crippled already (localized resources claimed at frist few days). It received a backstab from gilding changes halfway into it's puberty, and, finally, got kicked in the groin by archery changes (however, not before many active and more than developed players lost their characters to giggling archer alts). Now we're waiting for new improved Combat system (and, fingers crossed, something from FP test server, it's really neat and we're catching all the bugs we can!).

I say, we wait for all the major changes that are already crowning from developer's benevolent tit to appear and settle for a week or two, and then World 9 should go. It was fun while it lasted, it brought a lot of really neat changes, but it's song is coming to an end.

[Zeler]

So... world reset every two weeks?

Are you afraid to accept the fact that your game lacks content for long lasting worlds? At least for now it certainly does.

...? No? I do not deny that there is a problem. I just do not see much of a solution in frequent world resets.

They are better solution than no solution at all.

[Atamzsiktrop]

@jorb: we shouldn't be talking about "world resets on a regular basis", and most of us aren't. The game changes rapidly (in comparison), which says a lot about developers being good at what they do, but establishing an imminent reset for each world, be it 2 weeks (har har) or a year, kinda totally modifies the gaming experience. Players would have a deadline; they would plan their efforts in game to concentrate maximum output of activity on last days, maybe weeks. That's when all the wars will happen, all the drama and a second spike of activity (first being the world start). Also, a lot of people would be just hanging on forum waiting for new world to start along with everybody else. To summarize, an established schedule of world resets will add and substract a lot from gameplay, and it is not a momentary decision, it should be well-thought and maybe (as suggested on this very forum) tested for, like, 6 months with 3 worlds being reset at 2 months time, with considerably smaller map, running simultaneously with the server we have now (I hope your server allows it).

The thing we SHOULD be talking about in this thread, I believe, is THIS particular world being reset. It started crippled already (localized resources claimed at frist few days). It received a backstab from gilding changes halfway into it's puberty, and, finally, got kicked in the groin by archery changes (however, not before many active and more than developed players lost their characters to giggling archer alts). Now we're waiting for new improved Combat system (and, fingers crossed, something from FP test server, it's really neat and we're catching all the bugs we can!).

I say, we wait for all the major changes that are already crowning from developer's benevolent tit to appear and settle for a week or two, and then World 9 should go. It was fun while it lasted, it brought a lot of really neat changes, but it's song is coming to an end.

I agree with everything you said (except for calling new combat improved, heh) here, bro!

People want it and it's the perfect time for it. W10 should come soon.

[jorb]

I'm not sold. Resetting for no development reason and "just cuz" completely undermines any future case for the longevity of the next world, and will just be a self-reinforcing trend. People will be less invested in the world, more quit-prone, as they can always just wait for the next world, &c&c.

[Atamzsiktrop]

Playercount should be a development reason.

I guess it's better to think that "People will be less invested in the world, more quit-prone, as they can always just wait for the next world, &c&c." and have almost no players for months, than to actually have people playing the game. xd

[Hasta]

Resetting for no development reason and "just cuz"

0. Implement major changes.
1. Announce world reset on September 32nd.
2. Receive activity spike.
2,5 (optional) Encourage reporting bugs of new implementations by publicly awarding "Descendant" hats for those accounts at W10 start.
3. Lick out all the nastiest bugs clean (people won't be hoarding it when they know the world is ending, and. even more so, if they receive a token of gratitude for reporting said bugs).
4. Reach the culmination by some simple world-ending event for the last week (ofcourse, pre-announced).
4,5 (optional) ENcourage attending worlds transition event by awarding "W9 winner/survivor/etc." hats for achievements in the event.
5. PROFIT, start W10 anew with galvanized community and positive public image (at least among said community).

This is development reason. A world is nothing without players. And this one outlived a very good part of it's players (I'm not saying "all" or "most", I'm sure you have access and keep your eye on a much more precise statistic than "currently playing" nuymber on the home page).

As was said before, at the start of new world players will have a lot of activities ahead which would let you work on somwthing more endgame-ish, for at least a few months, while throwing in small updates and additions biweekly or something.

This phrase I quoted made me feel like developing this world has become a purpose in itself for you; and I know for a fact is isn't so. A developer who always tilts into the direction players push him is a bad one; but there is nothing wrong in succumbing to pleas of multiple active players once in a while. Please consider it. Not like "will consider™", but seriously. Mull it over.

Sorry for worse than usual English, btw.

[CSPAN]

Obviously, that's why if they reset now they have a few months to work on the game, add some (a lot) of content and then they won't have to worry about worlds becoming dead after 3 months, while actually having a decent playerbase. :]

under-rated post.

[Senabus]

0. Implement major changes.

Not implemented:
- Siege mechanics still abusable and not balanced at all, combat system in work progress.
- New mechanics for complex objects not implemented (towers, knarrs, bridges).
- End-game content not balanced and have no real goals to achieve. No windmill!

1. Announce world reset on September 32nd.
2. Receive activity spike.

It is not right - it will be activity of PvP players only, in a fact - casual players will drop at this point and no garanties that they will start in new one.

5. PROFIT,

For you? Cos you want new world?

A developer who always tilts into the direction players push him is a bad one; but there is nothing wrong in succumbing to pleas of multiple active players once in a while.

First part right, but second - wrong. Players trying to achieve own targets, that may be not a best for all another, less active.

In fact, the current world is coming to its sunset, but this is no reason to end it, for a game that is "in the testing phase", until all the tasks are not finished yet.