Recommended World(s) ?

RaiderTr

Well-Known Member
I wonder what's this based on, and if it's something automatic or not.

In any case it's surprising not to see Colorado there..
I mean.. "Newest" worlds aren't necessarily worthy of being "Recommended" ..

Instead, we could have 2 servers there with their starting dates nearby.
So one can choose the "Newest" or the "Old but Gold" ..


It's odd to see only 1 server below "Worlds" (plural) anyway.
 
Last edited:

Poker Alice

Well-Known Member
Houston is Our latest world! .. well I think that wasn't updated

What does expanded premium mean anyone know? -> Colorado
 

RaiderTr

Well-Known Member
First and last of its kind. (Except "closed" W1 I guess)

Probably one of the biggest reasons why its still the most consistent world :cooln:
 
Last edited:

lulumcnoob

Well-Known Member
It is a remnant from a time where skill point buying was rampant as a way to improve your character in duels especially, fort battles to a lesser extent. Most players preferred the fairer playing-field Colorado offered at the time, but that doesn't mean it wasn't possible to spend massive chunks of gold nuggets to gain advantages.

The practice became somewhat irrelevant when sets started giving more skill points than you could ever buy, and years worth of repeatable quests giving skill points had passed.
 

RaiderTr

Well-Known Member
The practice became somewhat irrelevant when sets started giving more skill points than you could ever buy, and years worth of repeatable quests giving skill points had passed.
Well, yes and no :'P

I've heard some ppl who spent thousands for skills equaling or surpassing what levelling up gives
 

lulumcnoob

Well-Known Member
So I was just thinking again, why the newest world is "recommended"? I couldn't imagine a worse place to start playing....

Not only does it have the least players (well barely more accounts than the deadest worlds, but lots of lvl 1s on Kansas), the highest market prices, the worst PvP, and the highest premium gap, it also only has a 1 year shelf-life and no migration somewhere better.

Colorado for recommended to new players - new world for bored vets from other servers who understand the consequences of playing on the newest world.
 
Last edited:

RaiderTr

Well-Known Member
Contrary to common belief, 'old' servers are better for newbies.
They will get lots of help (both gear and info) and all.

In a new server however they will be like sheep amongst the wolf.
Especially at the start a lot will be Level 120-130 with 10 years of power-crept tombola sets and newbies be like low Level with Shop gear.
Then majority of those leave the game completely.

Been there, done that.

Btw I was told, Colorado was the "recommended" world before Idaho.
Idk whoever genius changed that and why.

Sure, Idaho started 'great' from corporation point of view but look where it and Juarez are now.
Honestly I do believe they still make more and consistent revenue from Colorado than any other.
 
Last edited:

Apelatia

Well-Known Member
@kuro90 Am sure I speak for a large majority of players when I say that there are many here who would love for the recommended world to be changed more often than it currently is. Even a quarterly change to a different world would inject some new life into some of the older worlds which really struggle to attract new players, but are active in their own right.

I know this was always an individual CM-guided decision in the past, so if we can lobby you to do that, you'd make many of us very happy.
 

kuro90

Well-Known Member
@kuro90 Am sure I speak for a large majority of players when I say that there are many here who would love for the recommended world to be changed more often than it currently is. Even a quarterly change to a different world would inject some new life into some of the older worlds which really struggle to attract new players, but are active in their own right.

I know this was always an individual CM-guided decision in the past, so if we can lobby you to do that, you'd make many of us very happy.
I'm already checking what can be done on this matter. For now, only the newest server is the recommended
 

Bill Paxton

Active Member
IMO the best thing would be if you would make it more visible how many active players are on a world. Right now there is a 'Highly populated' / 'Average population' label next to each world. But this doesn't tell us much, e.g. you can't compare these worlds when having 4 'Highly populated' worlds. How active?

Also that label is so small that one can easily overlook it. I only noticed it now because I searched for something like that.
 

lulumcnoob

Well-Known Member
That shows how many accounts are registered on a world, not how many are active. The value will decrease as accounts get deleted.
It's not deceptive because they aren't trying to show us that page anymore, it's meant to be kinda hidden :lol:
 

RaiderTr

Well-Known Member
So much for transparency.
They just slap a "Average/Highly Populated" on Servers, which doesn't mean anything at all, then recommend the newest dead-end.. and that's it.


Are you not entertained?!