You're right, it doesn't necessarily make sense migrating backwards, but consider that the 2 strongest battles are on the oldest and 3rd oldest worlds, and maybe I can convince you that opening new worlds in the west is nothing more than a device to split the player-base and farm nuggets from them. Consider Idaho as soon as World Joke opened, and the effect splitting the player-base had on it. One new world every 2nd year seems like the sweet spot between player boredom and letting the last world play out properly.
You're also right that we lack leaders, and maybe if there were more of those, we could save some worlds. But our numbers are shrinking and remaining leaders simply aren't willing to "waste their time" on such battles. (that being said, big ups to the people who do lead on the trash worlds, you're breathtaking) "Events" where we get participation prizes also don't do much on an noncompetitive world, we've experienced. Realistically, we need a substantial leader-pool to sustain a world, another reason to have all the fort fighters in one or two places.
Why migration? You may ask. Why don't fort fighters just make a new account on a "good" world and start playing there?
Because it takes about 12 months to get a character up to full strength, and because we've invested real money into these pixels, would be nice to be able to use them again in a competitive gaming environment.
There's a few ways we could go about the consolidation process, really I just need to know that there's going to be such a process in the very near future.
I also need to know if there's not going to be one, so i can leave your lovely forum to the counting games.
Thanks for replying and debating though, at least someone else still gives a solitary crap about battle quality. I'd like to point out we, the players, most recently raised these concerns in July then September, and are still waiting for progress going into the New Year.