Harsha..
Well-Known Member
I feel it's time this subject was raised again - there simply are too many worlds.
While I do understand the economic incentive in opening new worlds - players start there and spend nuggets to level up and get gear, there is no sense in leaving older and inactive worlds open. It does considerably more harm than good.
Assuming a Veteran player is on Dakota. He/She has worked hard in the past to take their toon to level 150, and aren't willing to put in the effort to start again from scratch in a more active world, which I know can be very difficult and energy-draining. A new set - say, the union set comes for sale and that player looks at the scant number of battles on Dakota and then decides "it's not worth it" and doesn't spend money on the game. Even as the world slides further into inactivity, players on that world get more depressed and gradually quit.
I have personally seen people in my alliance in Briscoe (yet another dead world) complain about the low activity. Few battles happen there and attendance is low. Many great players have Briscoe as their "main world", the one world where they invest 80% of their time and money in. Now, assuming those players can be moved to other worlds like Az or Colorado - these players would only contribute towards making these worlds more active. These worlds (Az and Co) which have a shortage of battle leaders will gain new ones if migration is allowed, and the players who migrate will gain a fresh interest in things. Additionally, with closing down the worlds, I also believe that Innogames will save money in server running costs. So, it's a win-win for everyone concerned.
My proposal is that Briscoe, Dakota and El Dorado be closed down. Players on these worlds who didn't spend nuggets on buying SPs/APs should be allowed to migrate to Colorado. I'd also like to request for a poll to be conducted in each of these worlds, asking players whether or not they want the world to be closed down. If the overwhelming majority votes, then it would provide adequate justification for closing that server down.
EDIT (11-Oct-2020) - updating this original post with a more recent post/proposal
While I do understand the economic incentive in opening new worlds - players start there and spend nuggets to level up and get gear, there is no sense in leaving older and inactive worlds open. It does considerably more harm than good.
Assuming a Veteran player is on Dakota. He/She has worked hard in the past to take their toon to level 150, and aren't willing to put in the effort to start again from scratch in a more active world, which I know can be very difficult and energy-draining. A new set - say, the union set comes for sale and that player looks at the scant number of battles on Dakota and then decides "it's not worth it" and doesn't spend money on the game. Even as the world slides further into inactivity, players on that world get more depressed and gradually quit.
I have personally seen people in my alliance in Briscoe (yet another dead world) complain about the low activity. Few battles happen there and attendance is low. Many great players have Briscoe as their "main world", the one world where they invest 80% of their time and money in. Now, assuming those players can be moved to other worlds like Az or Colorado - these players would only contribute towards making these worlds more active. These worlds (Az and Co) which have a shortage of battle leaders will gain new ones if migration is allowed, and the players who migrate will gain a fresh interest in things. Additionally, with closing down the worlds, I also believe that Innogames will save money in server running costs. So, it's a win-win for everyone concerned.
My proposal is that Briscoe, Dakota and El Dorado be closed down. Players on these worlds who didn't spend nuggets on buying SPs/APs should be allowed to migrate to Colorado. I'd also like to request for a poll to be conducted in each of these worlds, asking players whether or not they want the world to be closed down. If the overwhelming majority votes, then it would provide adequate justification for closing that server down.
EDIT (11-Oct-2020) - updating this original post with a more recent post/proposal
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.
Last edited: