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

Annie-Bell

Well-Known Member
#1 question in galv and houston is about which worlds to migrate to of 3 options (saw inno indicate may try to open up more options so look forward to that feedback)

#2 question for active players in galv and houston is see worlds wont be closed right away, but people wish to know how long have from Apr 21 (so can do the move and/or delete other toon in one of designated worlds and give inventory to teammates and move over toon from gav/houston if already have toons in designated worlds

Biggest worry is that world open for bit then closed and lose toons .. so for active player base for those worlds can we get est timeline, recognize migrations tough so inno communication much appreciated so players dont lose out!

thanks!
 
Goober Pyle

Goober Pyle

The West Team
Fort Balancing Strategist
Annie-Bell said:
#1 question in galv and houston is about which worlds to migrate to of 3 options (saw inno indicate may try to open up more options so look forward to that feedback)

#2 question for active players in galv and houston is see worlds wont be closed right away, but people wish to know how long have from Apr 21 (so can do the move and/or delete other toon in one of designated worlds and give inventory to teammates and move over toon from gav/houston if already have toons in designated worlds

Biggest worry is that world open for bit then closed and lose toons .. so for active player base for those worlds can we get est timeline, recognize migrations tough so inno communication much appreciated so players dont lose out!

thanks!
Click to expand...

The announcement was quite clear that “the server will not be closed yet”. There is no timeline and it will be very dependent on how many players exercise optional migration amongst all the other things considered. You can look at the timeline of closing W1 as a rather extreme example.
 

Annie-Bell

Well-Known Member
ty for your speedy response! hugs!

Perhaps could clarify the question .. do recognize that galv houston wll remain open.

Question want to know without doubt is can we migrate to AZ FB or dakota in one month if world isnt closed by then .. or will closure just happen without alot of notice and players that thought they had time lose toons. Apologize if worded above post unclear.

ty goober . Will take response that its not just a April 21 only thing that we will be informed lots in advance of closure date and that the 3 options will be available that whole time.
 
Beefmeister

Beefmeister

Well-Known Member
why were galveston and houston picked though? what was the deciding factor for that? like...for example, when is the same going to happen with worlds like idaho/juarez etc that are similar in numbers?

could add to that el dorado, briscoe, dakota, basically dead worlds. you create migration paths to these worlds...why? the course of things after this would probably be for those worlds to also be migrated to a more populated world like arizona
 
Last edited:

panos-the-best

Well-Known Member
First of all I want to welcome those that will migrate from Galveston and Houston to Juarez. I hope that they will bring some activity in this dead world.

I want to share my thoughts about the migration routes that are and will open in the future.

Firstly I would separate this worlds in two categories.
a) Old worlds : Those worlds are the ones that already have players migrated there from closed worlds (W1 and on) or from other markets.
Those worlds are:
Arizona, Briscoe, Colorado,Dakota,El Dorado, Fairbanks

b)New worlds : Respectively, those worlds who did not have any prior migration from very old worlds
Galveston, Houston, Idaho, Juarez,Kansas and so on

Why did I make this distinction?

Generally, it is better to to be able to migrate to a world older than yours, so that the balance is easy to be kept. However when many years pass, there is not that much of a difference an 8 year character or a 12 year character.
If you check this thread, it is easy to understand that worlds of case (a) have more developed players than those in case (b). Also worlds in the same case have about the same developement. So it is wise that players from case A can move to other A worlds, whereas B worlds can move either on A or B.
Also, Colorado should not be left out of migration routes. Game has moved to a point that classical or enhanced premium settings have no difference, set items "decide" your competitiveness nowadays.

Taking into account that, in my opinion migration routes in the near future should look like that : (with bold, the worlds that will recaive people)

Arizona

Briscoe ---> Arizona, Colorado,Dakota, Fairbanks

Colorado

Dakota (not much potential, but it is already open for other markets also and maybe more will come).

El Dorado ---> Arizona, Colorado, Dakota, Fairbanks

Fairbanks

Galveston ---> Arizona, Colorado, Dakota, Fairbanks, Juarez

Houston ---> Arizona, Colorado, Dakota, Fairbanks, Juarez

Idaho ---> Arizona, Colorado, Dakota, Fairbanks, Juarez

Juarez (To be honest, I think Kansas has bigger potential to keep as a migration route from the "newer" worlds, but since it has already been chosen for migrations from G,H let's stay like that)

Kansas ---> Arizona, Colorado, Dakota, Fairbanks, Juarez


*Las Vegas and Montana are too new yet (maybe with less activity than anticipated though).
 

panos-the-best

Well-Known Member
Beefmeister said:
why were galveston and houston picked though? what was the deciding factor for that? like...for example, when is the same going to happen with worlds like idaho/juarez etc that are similar in numbers?

could add to that el dorado, briscoe, dakota, basically dead worlds. you create migration paths to these worlds...why? the course of things after this would probably be for those worlds to also be migrated to a more populated world like arizona
Click to expand...

I think it is mainly because G,H have the smaller amount of players from all the dead worlds. The standards of keeping a world without migration seem to be too low unfortunatelly.
Choosing Dakota, Briscoe and Juarez as potential migration routes mean that the do not intend to open migration from them in the near future.
 
PrancingPurplePony

PrancingPurplePony

Well-Known Member
I was really hoping that Dakota would get chosen as a place to migrate FROM. not TO. I moved to Dakota when W11 closed, as I already had an account on Arizona and would have had to delete account. I have been wanting to go somewhere else since I got to Dakota. The market is usually empty of anything I want or need, so I hope we get a lot of crafters migrating to Dakota to put stuff on the market,
 

DeletedUser15368

Beefmeister said:
why were galveston and houston picked though? what was the deciding factor for that? like...for example, when is the same going to happen with worlds like idaho/juarez etc that are similar in numbers?
Click to expand...
ScarletKisses said:
I am curious why Idaho wasnt added to that migration list out of Houston and Galveston??
Click to expand...
PrancingPurplePony said:
I was really hoping that Dakota would get chosen as a place to migrate FROM
Click to expand...
I think all of this is the result of the self-imposed restriction that a world must either close down or close registrations to have Migrations, instead of just opening the game up and letting people play where they would like with their characters.
 

Annie-Bell

Well-Known Member
panos-the-best said:
I think it is mainly because G,H have the smaller amount of players from all the dead worlds. The standards of keeping a world without migration seem to be too low unfortunatelly.
Choosing Dakota, Briscoe and Juarez as potential migration routes mean that the do not intend to open migration from them in the near future.
Click to expand...

well said panos for both your posts. Liked some of your ideas. Also took a bit to figure out why galv with 30-40 battles last few months is on list whereas see places like brisoce and eldor etc with only awesomia battles. It is about inno's baseline numbers of active players which sadly even if still battles, wasnt quite enough .

The other thought that gone thru head, esp watching people encourage others to migrated routes is for inno to create new blank world, and put worlds of b,d, e,g,h,i worlds there so there is no history bogging down, or side just clean slate (which means some of us will lose more toons but sitting in even less active worlds). Agree that less worlds overall, is more.

To speak of past migrations, there was migration of W1 and or non .en players to AZ, galv, houston FB and Idaho few years back. Levels and such were pretty close for AZ and even FB, it did impact idaho which was only 4 year old world at time with promise of many ff's kinda put halt to ff's there and understand why not designated migration route (all kinda gathered on one side making it difficult which leaders may have to make sure doesnt happen in jaurez.). Galv and houston and fairbanks didnt see huge increase which may have contributed to now migrating outta 2 of them but inno did give them a shot by having migration open. It is sad to see worlds migrate out and eventually close after few weeks/months but was great in glory days and wish all well wherever they end up.

well said panos and hope inno takes look at ur ideas, i guess for me kinda think worlds A-H as bit older and I-M as newer as used to seeing one group of players all in earlier worlds, different group in newer wolds, and some covering across both older and newer.
 
Clever Hans

Clever Hans

Well-Known Member
I think the choice of worlds for migrations has more to do with the nugget purchases rather than any other metric.
Even if world X has a higher overall activity than world Y but similar player numbers, Inno will favour the world which is more profitable.
Sometimes all of the difference is about having 3-4 big spenders more at the local world.
 
Harsha..

Harsha..

Well-Known Member
From my understanding, there is a dashboard that displays the general activity of all worlds based on various parameters. Once a world drops below a certain threshold it's marked for outward migration/closure and apparently that threshold is extremely low. There were various signs and hints over the past several months that Houston and Galv were the least active.

Innogames actions in response to all the player feedback, frankly do not inspire much confidence. We've now seen them opening up migration routes to more dead worlds and no further comments on any serious reform. I would not hold my breath on any further world closures for another few years and by then they would have opened up 3-4 more new worlds, so nothing would have changed.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top