We really need to close down the older worlds and allow migration

RaiderTr

Well-Known Member
"main world"
What exactly you doing in that "main world" if I may ask?

I'm sure we can find many that will prefer status-quo but that doesnt help anyone.

less than 5000 total accounts
Current average per server is 1k, more or less. (Lots being lowbies/inactive)
 

caroliena

Member
Main world is a number one world for me.I mean i play more in El Dorado then another worlds.Second world is for my Juarez now and the third place is Idaho.Sorry i like the worlds it most from all
 

Pankreas PorFavor

Well-Known Member
Main world is a number one world for me.I mean i play more in El Dorado then another worlds.Second world is for my Juarez now and the third place is Idaho.Sorry i like the worlds it most from all
I am just trying to understand, that is the reason for my question...

What would be different for you if your character from El Dorado would be migrated somewhere else? I don't play in any of the 3 worlds you mention, that's why I ask. I don't know the community there, politics etc.
Would the fort battles and duels be much different (worse) if you moved to another world? Is it the market (items available and prices) that would be worse?Because adventures, quests, jobs, crafting - that's all the same in all the worlds. If you are saying that the fort and dueling scene is better in El Dorado than in other places, then I would understand. But if you're saying "I like El Dorado best because of crafting or jobs" then I don't understand :)
Or similar to what Raider asked - what exactly are you doing in your main world that you would not be able to do somewhere else?
 

asdf124

Well-Known Member
Having given it some thought and seen many posts since the original post, I think this new way of organizing worlds might be the most optimal for the long term survival of the game.

El Classico - A permanent classic server, either in V1.00 or at the version after FFs were added to the game, but before any tombolas.
World 1 - PvE, Berry pickers world. FFs happen every now and then, duels can be enabled/disabled by players.
World Colorado - non-enhanced premium world. No buying of SP/AP or instant energy refill/job completion.
World Arizona - enhanced premium world I
World Idaho - enhanced premium world 2
Roadrunner XI - permanent speed world. It resets annually, with everything going back to scratch at the start of the year, specifically catering to the playerbase who likes shorter term and quicker gameplay.

Any world not on the list is simply shut down and players allowed to migrate either to W1, CO, AZ or Idaho. The opening of new "long term" worlds can be permantently suspended in favor of the speed server that resets annually. I feel that this formulation will be the most optimal, effectively catering to all sections of the playerbase, while continuing to give the company the revenues it needs from the game.
Yes please, but can you also have world 1 to be open again?

Having given it some thought and seen many posts since the original post, I think this new way of organizing worlds might be the most optimal for the long term survival of the game.

El Classico - A permanent classic server, either in V1.00 or at the version after FFs were added to the game, but before any tombolas.
World 1 - PvE, Berry pickers world. FFs happen every now and then, duels can be enabled/disabled by players.
World Colorado - non-enhanced premium world. No buying of SP/AP or instant energy refill/job completion.
World Arizona - enhanced premium world I
World Idaho - enhanced premium world 2
Roadrunner XI - permanent speed world. It resets annually, with everything going back to scratch at the start of the year, specifically catering to the playerbase who likes shorter term and quicker gameplay.

Any world not on the list is simply shut down and players allowed to migrate either to W1, CO, AZ or Idaho. The opening of new "long term" worlds can be permantently suspended in favor of the speed server that resets annually. I feel that this formulation will be the most optimal, effectively catering to all sections of the playerbase, while continuing to give the company the revenues it needs from the game.
Something worth mentioning, I don't think many actually notice is that the last world to be added to options in profile for "worlds currently played" is Eldorado. And none of the old worlds w2-12 have been removed or specially marked.

I find that funny and sad at the same time.
 

Bad Billy Jack

Well-Known Member
How to improve game. I am so sick and tired about all the whiners over fort battles. They are not what is killing the game.

1) Remove dueler crits. You cause soldiers & advents to quit the game. No player should EVER do this much damage.

2) Remove church building. Waay too much power levelling.

3) Remove power levelling. We go up waaay too fast. Slow the game down.

4) We run out of quests about L110. Make more high level questlines.

5) Separate low and high levels. At L120 You MUST migrate to a high level world. We will have L1-L119 worlds and L120+ worlds. Make the two types of worlds DIFFERENT, something you want to graduate to. This can even be an AUTO-MIGRATE where inno moves you to a less populated upper world.

6) Eliminate dueling players much lower than your duel level. It is still waay too easy for duelers to duel DOWN. This is the biggest reasons players quit the game.

7) Maximum number of forts an alliance can own is 16. End super alliances & domination worlds.

8) Eliminate fort membership. Forts only have an owner. This goes with #7 above so alliances cannot be in cahoots with each other to form super alliances.

Only the short list!
 
Last edited:

lulumcnoob

Well-Known Member
How to improve game. I am so sick and tired about all the whiners over fort battles. They are not what is killing the game.

1) Remove dueler crits. You cause soldiers & advents to quit the game. No player should EVER do this much damage.

2) Remove church building. Waay too much power levelling.

3) Remove power levelling. We go up waaay too fast. Slow the game down.

4) We run out of quests about L110. Make more high level questlines.

5) Separate low and high levels. At L120 You MUST migrate to a high level world. We will have L1-L119 worlds and L120+ worlds. Make the two types of worlds DIFFERENT, something you want to graduate to. This can even be an AUTO-MIGRATE where inno moves you to a less populated upper world.

6) Eliminate dueling players much lower than your duel level. It is still waay too easy for duelers to duel DOWN. This is the biggest reasons players quit the game.

7) Maximum number of forts an alliance can own is 16. End super alliances & domination worlds.

8) Eliminate fort membership. Forts only have an owner. This goes with #7 above so alliances cannot be in cahoots with each other to form super alliances.

Only the short list!
I'm not sure which issues you're fixing here (or what you think is killing the game), other than PvE players not wanting to get duelled, which the best solution to that is giving them their own world to farm on. Worlds being dominated and bad quest-lines are basic problems with the game's management, and having too many worlds relative to the size of the player-base, and this doesn't even touch on that.
Feel free to elaborate though if i've misunderstood, If you can't convince some random player who desperately wants positive change of your points, I think they would be completely lost on the game's management.

1. Before crits, HP was too dominant, especially ghosting would be too strong, and I believe crits are what makes that class enjoyable to play, so they shouldn't be "removed", just reduced to make it fair on the other 3 (which was part of the recent tested changes anyway).

2 and 3. I'm fine with a way to power level after 11 years of playing the game, presumably someone at some point has paid money for the building gear and the grinding was never enjoyable. I hate that some players only do this and don't contribute anything to the game though, but if that's what they enjoy, that's what they enjoy and a PvE W1 would cater to them. It would otherwise take over a year to reach your character's potential, which is all well and good on a new world that only lasts for 9 months at most before literally dying. I see the future of this game in old, stable PvP worlds though,

4. Oh god no, no more etriel quests. I'd prefer someone who played the game to re-write old outdated quests, and to re-do the terrible ones that have come out in recent years with Sleep 0/1 or limited time windows to remove bad mechanics from quests.

5. oh god no don't split the playerbase and leave the new players with no one to guide them, gear them or allow them to realise the world class social aspect of the game.

6. People still cry about duels? I didn't know the 5 duellers we have left had any targets. I like the idea of making W1 a non-PvP world for the 12 players who'd enjoy that, don't lower the number of available targets for players, that kills duelling more than someone with a high duel level relative to their character level getting whacked.

7. looks good in theory, means a world is over when a town owns 16 forts and no one else wants to dig, so maybe a mechanic to abandon a fort is required unless they stop opening new worlds that inevitably end up being dominated by a group of premium players then subsequently dying. This is the only idea that's on the right lines for me so far though, and I would prefer the cost to declare a battles increases exponentially as your town owns more forts, but I'm still not really on board with this one as it's often only down to 2-6 towns doing all the digging and defending on sustainable worlds, never mind trash worlds where there are only 2 relevant towns.

8. I assume the allied towns would still be able to sleep in the fort? pointless addition imo, especially since defending forts requires more co-ordination and possibly a player from another town ranking. Nothing worse than showing up to an 11pm fight and the one town in the fort has no Generals available.
 
Last edited:

Bad Billy Jack

Well-Known Member
There are two main issues that I believe are reducing the popularity of The West. I am using Inno's FoE as a basis for this.

1) The West almost totally eliminates the American player base, since it is based on fort fighting during "Prime Time" ~ prime time for Europe that is. Americans really cannot fort fight cuz Prime Time is during working hours. We really need an American series of worlds, but The West is all about language separating players and the entire world speaks English hence EN series of worlds. The best way to help with this is adding more personal gaming to The West, instead of depending on compunity-based elements like fort fighting and adventures. Things to keep the player busy that do not depend on the time of day. Working Americans almost have to go the dueler route, cuz ffing for them is offline and their toon sits there idle for most of the day.

2) As in my post above the West levels are intermixed with my solution above to at least have an upper and lower level worlds separating at L120. Inno's FoE solves this by players being in ERAS, basicly separating them from higher and lower levels. Inno adds new eras from time to time as long time players cap out at top era.

You cannot have a L10 competing with an L150 in fort battles. and I hear our level cap is about to be raised to L180. Oh my God!

FoE has so much going on that no player can even attempt to do it all. There is just too much to do and it never ends. As I posted above The West players run out of things to do at high levels and the game becomes boring. Hence they yell and scream about fort fighting issues.

Guild Expeditions ~ FoE's most popular element. It is basically a personal PvE battle challenge but has Guild rankings as a bonus. GE runs for a week and resets. For The West this would be Town Expeditions cuz it appears that the old people want to have only 2 alliances per world (due again to their only caring about fort fighting), whereas FoE has tons of guilds. This would also help The West towns to grow and help to end single player towns fed up with the 2 major alliances. Your soldiers would be trained using money and berry picking

Cultural Settlements ~ This is an off map minimap where you build a city for a very short period of time. Additionally, this off map type site would be where you build your soldiers for Town Expeditions. As you advance, you "level up" to next era of Town Expeditions with new types of soliders as in FoE.
 
Last edited:

lulumcnoob

Well-Known Member
An American time-zone world should have happened a long long time ago. It would be amazing indeed for the North Americans, possibly better for the Aussies and New Zealanders too, instead of being split up between 10 worlds where none has the population to sustain American prime time battles, we'd just have to be cautious about over-splitting the player-base - but I'd happily play an American world as my 2nd. Timed quests are also another reason to have diverging time-zones, as much as I hate them.

The "prime time" term was never about geopolitics, simply statistical for when the most players were available for battles, and that happened to be dinnertime in Europe and over time as the player count dropped and we relied more on North Americans filling in the spaces, "prime time" got pushed further back into the night. The community have indeed been advocating for a NA timezone world for a long time and I still do, but we'd need to pick a world and open migrations because I absolutely can't condone opening a new one.

I think that our low player count and the actual game itself don't lend well to splitting that playerbase at all. Also the level difference is something the developer takes into account when re-writing the battle formulas of late (although we were all blindsided by the level cap increase and the possible consequences of that), and it only takes 3-4 months of mindlessly grinding a church to reach a competitive level on an old world, if you're willing to put in that effort. I don't really compare this game to the other Inno Games that are RTS city builders, but sure I can accept examples of better game design choices. Unfortunately The West is considered "feature complete", so we won't be seeing any big new changes like those you've mentioned, so I focus my posts on "fixing" the existing features and trying to make the game a fraction of the amount of fun that it once was.
Even existing global event features like the travelling circus are horribly outdated and need some love before a new global event is developed imo, but this is an example of an existing feature we could possibly convince the management to pivot to fit a better vision for the game, making it an individual weekly challenge, instead of a global challenge that 99.9% of people can't take part in, to end up with a prize pool that would maybe look appealing in 2011.
 
Last edited:

asdf124

Well-Known Member
7. looks good in theory, means a world is over when a town owns 16 forts and no one else wants to dig, so maybe a mechanic to abandon a fort is required unless they stop opening new worlds that inevitably end up being dominated by a group of premium players then subsequently dying. This is the only idea that's on the right lines for me so far though, and I would prefer the cost to declare a battles increases exponentially as your town owns more forts, but I'm still not really on board with this one as it's often only down to 2-6 towns doing all the digging and defending on sustainable worlds, never mind trash worlds where there are only 2 relevant towns.
An auto event happens where raiders decide to raid all the forts in a month! The raiders thought the forters were being rusty and weak....