The West EN Census

DeletedUser15368

Did you do this all by hand? Or some kind of program/code? I'd really love to see sth like this on my region's servers.
The table was made manually, you just need an account on every world, the formatting took longer than the data entry.
The fancy charts in the link are made by a wizard.

So my question is very simple but none of the gm's is giving me a clear answer... '' You say that you try to make better the game day by day but you have a world (Kansas) with 30 max active players try to survive and ''enjoy'' (enjoy what? on a dead world? ) the game.. We have done everything from our part.. we spoke with you (gm's via chat) and we have analyzed the situation many times... we sent officially tickets, we sent oficially emails to the central inno's office's but nobody does anything to protect us and help us. Recendly you open migrations from two dead world why you didnt include Kansas on the migrations? or why you didnt close Kansas as well? What are you waitting for? the 30 players to become 15 in order to pay attention to what we are telling you for over 1 year? The game policy is the same for all kind of games. If you want to make the game better you have to pay attention on player's point of view as well otherwise the game has no future. Either you want it or not. G-i-v-e us the chance to enjoy the game again. Kansas and some other worlds are dead.. this is not gonna change at all either you close those worlds and allow us to move on a more active world helping the overall situation to become better or if you dont want to do it tell us to delet from now our characters and not wait for anything. Lastly, what is the point of the foroum? I see everyday great ideas from a variety of players and the gm's are not even reply or pay attention to those ideas in order to put some effort to make it happen...
Yeah... El Dorado, Idaho and Kansas all need to be closed, in addition to Houston and Galveston.
My only account worth migrating is trapped on a dead world, so I get you.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

DeletedUser15368

Las Vegas too, the activity there is significantly dropping as well as dead market. At least, they should allow migration to the players (LV) who want to migrate to different world.
A new world always kills the previous one.

To what extent Montana kills Vegas is yet to be seen. Dead worlds can make a comeback, it all depends on the people playing there.
LV have fort battles - very low quality for battles for half the days of the month, but they do have battles... It should theoretically be a good PvE world, but there's much better worlds for that type of playstyle. It's very much just a "spare" world that exists because they insist on opening a new world every year without closing an old one.

To solve this problem, which will continue to worsen as the community continues to shrink over time, we should simply open a world that resets every year - possibly with migrations out to a stable world at the end of the year.
 

RaiderTr

Well-Known Member
To what extent Montana kills Vegas is yet to be seen. Dead worlds can make a comeback, it all depends on the people playing there.
LV was born dead so it's a fat chance at best.
Montana started even worse.

At this point new worlds ain't really profitable anymore.
we should simply open a world that resets every year - possibly with migrations out to a stable world at the end of the year.
The Travian way. Well, sort of.

With certain server bonuses it could work.
Less torture and stuff, faster PvP and all.

Of course yearly Classic version would be much better option..
 

JWillow

Well-Known Member
To solve this problem, which will continue to worsen as the community continues to shrink over time, we should simply open a world that resets every year - possibly with migrations out to a stable world at the end of the year.

I second the idea of year long servers instead of new worlds.

My suggestion would be a new world once every 3 years and possibly have less active worlds start getting cleared if they are 5-6 years old and have failed to stay active. Reason for 5-6 years as that should give enough time to possible recover from a world domination frame of mind and into a cooperative if it is going to do so or duelers don't struggle to find targets, or market is active on trading so questers have little trouble progressing.

In between the new worlds have a year long world that resets. The motivation for these worlds I think should be that players get milestone rewards on a regular world.
Examples of milestones:
reward for every 50 levels gained
reward for every 115 battles
reward for every 150 duels
maybe some other type milestones I am not thinking of

Possible reward ideas: bond letter, VIP medals, 1-5% potion of wisdom, can of spinach

Then to add some competition maybe those in top 5-10 ranks in each catergory nuggets or tombola set items.

Also rewards would given out as the milestone are reached and not at the end, so hopefully spread out the work load over time(except for the rank rewards, those would be at the end).
 
Last edited:

DeletedUser41153

Which world currently has the most active market? I've tried a couple different worlds so far but there seemed to be barely anything for sale except for special outfit pieces that were way too expensive for a low-level character (prices in the hundreds of thousands).
 

JWillow

Well-Known Member
Which world currently has the most active market? I've tried a couple different worlds so far but there seemed to be barely anything for sale except for special outfit pieces that were way too expensive for a low-level character (prices in the hundreds of thousands).
Colorado is probably the most stable but arizona or montana could be options to try.

As for high dollar sets, typically those are the new and in demand.

Though if you find an active town or even ask in saloon for some starter sets, there might be some players with older sets willing to sale for base price, they are not the best sets but can be good for beginners. These sets just are not kept on market as there are not many new players coming in to older worlds, so you need to ask. (new players=those that are not active on other worlds or has a friends base, making this distinction as there are a good amount of low levels that have connections before joining old worlds)
 

Nib Cassidy

Member
I would suggest, there should be an option to migrate ONCE before a server is officially closed for new registration or up for migration. In this way, at least players may have the chance to hop into active world rather than waiting and losing their will to play.
PvE elements are not enough for a server to maintain balance gameplay. Especially with the new achievements which are implementing now and often.
 

Harriet Oleson

Well-Known Member
I don't understand what are the criterias to say "dead", "pve", "pvp" ?

About Kansas, there was no real battle since St Patrick, but at St Patrick, battles were daily during 3 weeks and with 80 to 100 fighters per battle (att+def together). It's not "high" compared to some other worlds of course, but not low neither in my opinion. I think ? It was several months ago though, and in easter nobody dug but it was because with average attendance, in this kind of event it's more worthy to do jobs at 1h, than to participate to battles.

And if out of event period there are almost no battle, it's only because the world is imbalanced : two big alliances but one of them more active than the other one (=manage to gather more fighters and own more forts; the other alliance barely never dig anymore while the first one can only do friendlies if they don't want to own all Kansas and block the entire world ...). There's also a third alliance created recently which seems motivated for FF, but they are rather isolated (and I have a big doubt most of their members are multis ... I might be wrong, but it's full of low level toons all created not so long ago and connected at the same hours ...).
In any case, if nothing is done to balance, if no communication between sides to solve the problem, if no real new competition between sides, it will stay the same : battles mostly only during important events.

But that's only about FF : there are at least 100 active players every day in this world, not for FF nor maybe even for duels, but at least for quests, farming, crafting or whatever. At prime time yesterday, there were 84 players connected to the saloon chat; but only simultaneously; all the day there are other different players who come and leave, and come etc. I'm saying 100 a bit randomly, maybe it's higher or even lower, I can only say for sure it's at least 80, not 30. For me it's rather low but not "so" low, but maybe I'm wrong ?

In any case I think migrations are opened when there are way less active players than that, and especially way less nuggets purchases/spending. And in Kansas there are still A LOT if I can judge by active players profiles full of nuggets items after each special sale. I'm personally convinced puchase/spending is the main criteria from a game's team point of view, to consider a world as active or dead. As long as Kansas is economically viable, I really don't think there will be migrations from there, whatever if we think the world is dead or still with some potential.
 

DeletedUser15368

About Kansas, there was no real battle since St Patrick, but at St Patrick, battles were daily during 3 weeks and with 80 to 100 fighters per battle (att+def together). It's not "high" compared to some other worlds of course, but not low neither in my opinion. I think ? It was several months ago though, and in easter nobody dug but it was because with average attendance, in this kind of event it's more worthy to do jobs at 1h, than to participate to battles.
Kansas had just 10 battles in a month (on par with other dead/closing worlds), 434 total attendance (about half the participation of a "PvP" world), and features among the most imbalanced sides on .net (which results in low quality battles). its PvP is dead by any reasonable measurement. That's not to say it can't be revived, that's up to the players there.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Harriet Oleson

Well-Known Member
Yes, I read your other message, but all the precisions I brought above were made to explain why there was no real battle out of event, while precising there was still some activity (once again : not in FF) ... So what I don't understand is why ranked this world in "dead" category and not in "PvE" for example, knowing there are still active players here ?

That's a pity cause Sheep1 was gathering fighters to make daily battles since a few days; he managed to convince the other side to do the same. But he abruptly stopped his efforts after your message saying Kansas was dead and before the other side begins to gather their fighters ... That's weird to see him writting here there's no hope for Kansas anymore (and to post in the alliance topic a link to this message), while sunday and monday he was motivating everyone, and this even before seeing if its efforts worked ...
 

DeletedUser15368

Certainly wasn't my intention to discourage anyone from trying to revive a world and that would be regrettable if it did. I still maintain that the PvP is only dead until someone on both sides revives it. Kansas is not yet in that position, and so I still see it as a dead world for the purposes of describing the world as it stands at the time of the post.

The designations are personal opinion based on both player numbers and fort battle data. In retrospect maybe opinions don't belong in a census post, and should be kept to the discussion.

All worlds have the same events, it usually actually drives more players to battles for the event currency... unless there's simply not enough players to make it viable. When key elements of the game cannot function, it's not a healthy world.

There's still people actively playing and spending money on all of the "dead" worlds, which does indeed keep them open well past any reasonable time to offer migrations.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Annie-Bell

Well-Known Member
good comments and various perspectives. . Important to note that is INNO main that decides what worlds close according to criteria (usually money, which is fair). So it is difficult for us common players to communicate (except via local inno) of which worlds we (meaning overall) feel is more "dead" in actual application - for me, surprised some small worlds also not included. So think as players we hoping inno takes our input to them!! :)

With brisoce and dakota being migrate routes in, says there is factors keeping them consideration. With el dor and idaho not migration routes is a likely indicator of next to be migrated out and for worlds kansas forward assume deemed too new. It is inno local that decides which worlds to migrate to and which to not. For Galv and Houston migrations, the choice of Az (yay), Br, Fb (yay), Dak, Juarez (still have to wait and see if good).

A comment was made prior, couldnt agree more and sometimes feel like inno may not understand that part - something like to keep worlds going/revive world, need people on both sides willing to put in effort - it truly does come down to that. It defines which worlds people try out, ones people migrate to when available, and which people remain active on, and which world they buy nuggests (for inno cha-ching!). So encourage inno local to really take a look at all people's thoughts (will jot down my thoughts but only speak to what i feel)...

How will migrations impact worlds and which are most possibly words meaning promote daily battles ...

AZ
- is potential. I know when talking with people have said the one side has numbers but needs to come together, so some really strong players joining Battle Born in this migration and future migrations is an excellent choice. RIght now seeing no ff's. It has potential for ff's. People want ff's!

Briscoe - i joined briscoe after the hay days of Rev vs Evo .. know Dirty dave and Maddie came back and tonnes people came to rejoin but part missing was someone from otherside doing same, at same time. There are excellent players in briscoe who may want to stay there or could be used in other worlds in active ff's .. guess saying wished there had been option for some of those great migrate OUT of briscoe not in but again know other factors.

Colo - know not open migration, is often many battles, good world, some of us still getting used to major reshuffle, do note that when there is event world then decline in primetime battles dont know if related, but if is, then thinking the event worlds doing opposite of what should be.

Dak - only world not in so cant speak to

El Dor - closed to galv/houston and likely future migrations (guessing) which kinda indicates futue. Know i joined that world to help fight agains the big team but when got there no one was even trying and tbh was focusing on trying to help build up other worlds.... again hard to decribe that without commentary to inno to then pass along to inno main. Speaks to above point of need people both sides but if years go by... maybe time?

FB - is potential, similar to AZ. Our side was gravely outnumbered for while but happily with migrations got some amazing players joining FB, so migrations may be just what doctor ordered, however for not if opposition doesnt rally up (been 7 months since we had daily battles) so hoping !!

Galv/Houston - migrations out .. some already left, some slacking (lol helen and annie and gang) and some wish to continue until closes.

Idaho - this is one that inno local should look at when evaluating what happens when migrating much older toons to newer worlds. Know probably wont like hearing this. For galv/houston to move back to older worlds is okay, moving up to juaez when union gear introduced for first time and 25 levels higher - if all join one side may result in what happened in idaho). Idaho at one point has possibility, lots of work by both sides to build up teams, migrations of w1 players (some of them 10 year players put into 4 year world) which they seemed to gather on one side which is fair but at same time our team was taken over and flipped to other side as well (Team united) which we had to start from square 1 again and felt months of building up against odds was something people not willing to go thru again .... again not migration people's fault and there were a few w1 players that went out of way to help both sides but just made enthusiasm for the people to rebuild and dig daily once again lack and since we have had few battles, people decided to focus their efforts elsewhere. Again as said above, you need groups on both sides to work. We hope for not same in juaerez, its truly up to the community to keep eye on, as people do want ff's, and not to see idaho happen there.

Juarez - This world worked for one reason - people forgot about us in juarez lol. There was big push to join colo (which agree is good) or to keep joining newer worlds to kick butt there, some actually still in Juarez .. but kinda pushed for no battles which luckily everyone ignored. It had ups and downs and definately small battles. But daily. Every day. Defenses usually won, attacks ususally lost. Our gang of AoW split off at one point as no leaders in opposition, forts were moved back and forth so not one group dominating. Players moved about to help were needed. Had its flaws but we had daily battles and largely overlooked by what some of us call the "troublemakers" of the game who push for one-sided or dominate which has now placed AOW as underdogs (its okay we will keep going, its long game) but know able to do as the leaders and teams on both sides were putting in tonnes of effort. Now is migration into with higher level toons, with union gear, we waiting to see if that impacts daily battles, hope doesnt .. kinda wish world that had potential but no ff's to bring about ff's were the option for people but know there are good peeps out there that wont let go of daily battles while some running back once migration called. To inno, pls take care when deciding what newer worlds to migrate to, pls look at idaho as example.

Kansas - havent been alot of battles in kansas. Have been seeing there is attempts by some to revive kansas. All these new worlds idaho on went thru same, big rush for first while, then leaders stop ff'ing and go to new world to do their thing there, leaving teams without leaders. In juarez, killer bonnie was newish player that stood up and kept daily battles going with other side leaders for years. I see in kansas harriet and sheep talking and maybe others, dont know alot about it but in my thoughts if have people willing to put in effort, then migration TO KANSAS may have been just what doctor needed ? Again need people willing to put in effort and looks like that is there, just now need the people to build both teams.

Vegas - i personally thrilled no migrations into vegas. Like other worlds, was a rush for one side, and seeing battles like 53v3 or 36v10 i feel exhausted, know have talked to people about trying to build up teams but some worlds too far gone with no real indication people want different. Everyone talked to about wanting to fight back eventually just gives up, know saw such one sided battles and decided to focus juarez where was more balanced valued. If players do come out to put in effort on both sides, then maybe but atm thrilled no one migrating and getting stuck there.


FF:s most activity (1) colo as was major focus of inno and players alike (2) montana as newest world (3) dangit .. we wee trying to hide that we had daily battles :D just hope people want to keep it out of hands of peope storming in to alter the juarez enironment for last few years and to say to inno local pls take extra care of what it means for wolds when moving toons much higher in levels and intro of union gear for first time into wolrds past houston.
 

Annie-Bell

Well-Known Member
yes and sometimes facts are facts. Just cause someone says not facts doesnt make that a fact, isnt that a fact :D (sorry person that all u get from me this year :D) think said that once or twice.

ty for chance to talk of one person's perspective (as indicated), the actual events can be looked at from historical records and/or current. I hope this is uselful for inno to consider when closing worlds and choosing where to migrate to in some player views, (all have equal right to share thoughts and hopefully a good, clear, and accurate picture gained by inno so can communicate that on is my personal hope

Would luv to see about 5 to 7 worlds of 13 going full fledge daily battles :) (again one person thoughts of where inno focus could be) - maybe less of event worlds/gringo guns to groups as i feel that distracts rather then add value to regular worlds, but that just add on one persons thoughts. Do know there are exceptional players on many teams that aching to ff and want them to be able to, regardless of world/team!

don't get me wrong, i still havent decided where to move my higher level, high dmg toon with union gear (you know) .. goal for some of us in some worlds is to have daily balanced ff's so waiting to see what is actually good for worlds, and both teams and really big believer need efforts from both sides to make work, ignore the ones running back after years not involved, and when it comes to high level toons and gringo/union to balance it out within worlds as best as can.

Pls note opinions only ! biggest purple hugs :)
 
Last edited:

DeletedUser15368

yes and sometimes facts are facts. Just cause someone says not facts doesnt make that a fact, isnt that a fact :D (sorry person that all u get from me this year :D) think said that once or twice.
I mean fwiw I think everything you said about what I've experienced was right, so definitely seems like a fair take on the worlds i'm not/haven't been on.

Would luv to see about 5 to 7 worlds of 13 going full fledge daily battles :) (again one person thoughts of where inno focus could be) - maybe less of event worlds/gringo guns to groups as i feel that distracts rather then add value to regular worlds, but that just add on one persons thoughts. Do know there are exceptional players on many teams that aching to ff and want them to be able to, regardless of world/team!
Of course that would be great, but Colorado doesn't even have enough leaders for that to happen every single day sometimes... It's a lot for small teams and is usually only sustainable for so long. Now if we only had about 5 worlds, there's more of a chance of that happening.

I also don't know where I'd move my only toon worth moving from Idaho. Az has the most players but no battles to speak of for now...
 

Beefmeister

Well-Known Member
yawn

same boring discussion for years. no migrations will happen, get over it. it's obvious.

i also have like 5 accounts that i will have nowhere to migrate and are just dead on worlds nobody cares about. even a merger of like 12 worlds into 3 or 4 worlds or whatever the number is won't ever revive any of them. maybe briefly, for a short time...i've seen it happen on other games and those dying again after 1 month

sets recycle every year and you can get everything you need in 3-4 months of playing, at most, including the ability to have an impact on forts. colorado is the only active world, get an account there if you don't have one already and stop waiting for divine interventions.

this game doesn't have much left as the people playing it don't get younger...so if you wanna actually play, now is the time. sitting discussing theory waiting for inno to satisfy your requirements...won't happen
 
Top