World resets are healthy for the game

[LadyGoo]

The problems related to the end-game should be resolved before the arrival of bigger numbers of new players.

Fixed that for you.

Players generate content. New players = new content (if they won't leave screaming after playing on the original client, poor questing/tutorial system, first death). The main issue might be the "comeback" into the game, swarmed by the large factions. Could be resolved by:
- making lands more local and hard to access straight away. I mean, crossroads and charter stones are nice. But if you wanna have some sort of local kingdoms ruled by new faces, you would like to protect them by not making the traveling that easy as it is nowadays = fewer raiders in your area, more meaning to knarrs/wagons/etc. travels, being able to claim your own piece of land and etc. Consequently, the factions would need more alliances + representatives to control bigger areas = socializing.
- bigger worlds, but only upon the Steam release.

[ErdTod]

Would it really be scalable long term for Jorbtar to maintain a bunch of ongoing servers, increasing each year, with next to zero player base for anything but the current world?

Most likely not, and old worlds will inevitably die. But it's better to have 3 worlds with 20, 100 and 1000 players than just one with 300.

Starting a new game in HnH in an old world is like looking for a job after graduation: everyone around you seem to have way more experience and you have nothing to offer for big companies. Eventually you will get somewhere, but it is way harder than it was to enter the elementary school...

[Granger]

Would it really be scalable long term for Jorbtar to maintain a bunch of ongoing servers, increasing each year, with next to zero player base for anything but the current world?

From a server cost point of view that should be no problem, the difficulty would be IMHO more with maintenance as older worlds could (and most likely would) be incompatible with new features.

Should existing worlds be abandoned update-wise when a new one is started that shouldn't make much of a difference and be doable.
Could also play into a suggestion back then that old worlds should not be wiped but frozen in time, with the ability to visit them as a ghost (with no obstacles and no interaction but some form of fast travel).

[maze]

I do warn. if steam happens.
World 2-3 Veterans will be back.
and that will not be fun for nobody.

Also resets are great and all to bring in Veterans and sometimes new players.
But at the same time people who are playing in game right now are more likely to quit when the world ends while they were still playing.

If you were to keep both worlds open- I don't see much of a problem to this. There could be some neat ideas added.
But likely the older worlds should be warnned everytime they log on that the world is unstable.

[LadyGoo]

I do warn. if steam happens.
World 2-3 Veterans will be back.
and that will not be fun for nobody.

World 2-3 vets are puppies in comparison to the guys who are playing nowadays. Experience > everything else.

But at the same time, people who are playing in the game right now are more likely to quit when the world ends while they were still playing.

As long as the factions are not quitting, it's totally fine. People who tend to quit because of the world resets are most likely the casual larpers that do not create much value, drama, income and etc.