DeletedUser16008
Awfully sorry, ill get my coat...........
Awfully sorry, ill get my coat...........
DeletedUser
Please keep this thread on topic, and do not spam needlessly, or it will be closed. Final warning 
DeletedUser
How I see things related to merging dying worlds:
Pros: (almost) everybody wants it!
Cons: lots of issues need to be resolved before the merging.
What are the characteristics of a dying world?
- 50% of the player base at level 75 and above;
- most players belong to one or more fully built towns (even if they don't reside in one, they have one or more towns they call "home").
- most forts are fully built, all forts have their towers, walls and barracks maxed out.
Issues to be considered:
1. Character merging
1.1. Don't merge, reset the characters to level 1 (disastrous, will effectively kill the world)
1.2. If a player has a character in only one world, the character will be unaffected in the new world.
1.3. If the player has characters in both worlds:
1.3.1. Give players the option to keep one character, and delete the other with no compensation (unfair);
1.3.2. Give players the option to keep one character, and relocate the other in a different world (seems fair);
1.3.2.1. Allow movement only to a mature world the player doesn't have a character in;
1.3.2.2. Allow movement to any mature world, replacing the character held in that world.
1.3.3. Give players the option to keep one character, and offer compensation for deleting the other, under one or more of the following forms:
1.3.3.1. reimburse the nuggets spent, partially or completely (seems fair);
1.3.3.2. offer compensation for the money of the deleted character:
- transfer the funds to the other character (unfair, makes character too rich);
- transfer the funds, capped at a fixed amount (seems fair).
1.3.3.3. offer compensation for the gear of the deleted character:
- merge the inventories of the two characters (unfair, makes them too rich compared to players with one character);
- allow a limited number of items to be carried over to the other character (seems fair);
- replace the inventory with its sales value, and treat it under the rules for money - see 1.3.3.2 (unfair, strips characters of named weapons, belts and pants);
- middle ground, allow a limited number of items to be carried over, and reimburse the sales value of the rest, under the rules for money - see 1.3.3.2 (seems most fair);
1.3.3.4. offer compensation for the products of the deleted character:
- under the same rules as for the gear;
- under different rules, for example treat an entire stack of products as one piece of gear (seems more fair).
1.3.3.5. offer compensation for the buffs and crafted items of the deleted character:
- under the same rules as for the gear;
- under different rules, for example treat an entire stack of buffs as one piece of gear (seems more fair).
1.3.3.6. offer compensation for the crafting level (doesn't seem necessary);
1.3.3.7. offer compensation for the skillset (doesn't seem necessary);
1.3.3.8. offer other forms of compensation:
- reset the shaman price for reskilling;
- reset the time penalty for joining a town.
1.4. If a player has two characters under two different names: let affected players submit a ticket, and solve the issue the same way as case 1.3.
2. Town merging
2.1. Don't merge, let the world be rebuilt from zero (very unfair)
2.2. Discard all ghost towns (seems fair);
2.3. If town location is occupied in only one world, move the town to the new world (seems fair);
2.4. If the location is occupied in both worlds:
2.4.1. Keep the larger town in its place, relocate the smaller town in the closest available space (seems fair);
2.4.2. Merge the population of the small town into the larger one; eventually, based on the number of points of the small town, add some funds into the treasury of the large town (not likely to work, drama might happen).
2.5. If two towns have the same name in both worlds, the larger town keeps the name, the smaller one's name is changed automatically to something random (fair, owners of the smaller town will have to rename it).
3. Fort merging
3.1. Don't merge, let the forts be rebuilt from zero (unfair, lots of resources have been poured into the forts);
3.2. Keep the most developed fort in place, but remove all ownership (seems fair);
3.3. Same as 3.2, but offer the funds necessary for a fort attack to the treasury of the owning town in both worlds (more fair);
3.4. Double the number of towns that can own a fort, and let all former owners own the fort together (not likely to work, plus it affects the world's structure).
4. Alliance merging
4.1. Disband all alliances, let new alliances form (fair);
4.2. Keep the alliances from both worlds (more fair);
4.2.1 In case two alliances have the same name, the larger alliance keeps its name, the smaller alliance's name is changed to something random.
What I propose:
- Merge the worlds, discarding any ghost towns;
- If there are duplicate towns in the same spot, move the smaller one to the nearest available spot;
- Remove ownership of the forts, and reimburse the cost of one fort attack to the owning town's treasury (in both worlds);
- Keep the most developed fort in place, and discard the other;
- Keep the alliances from both worlds in place;
- If there are towns or alliances with the same name in both worlds, rename the smaller ones to something random;
- In case a player has characters in both worlds, offer the possibility to:
a) either relocate one character to a different mature world, eventually replacing the character currently held in that world, or
b) delete one of the characters at the player's choice, allowing the player to select 5 objects to be transferred to the remaining character. The objects can be individual pieces of gear, stacks of products, or stacks of crafted items/buffs. Items that cannot be sold cannot be transferred either. The rest of the gear will be converted into money; a maximum of $50000 is transferred to the remaining character as banked money (not as cash, to avoid duel frenzies). Stats, medals and achievements are not transferred. Nuggets spent on the deleted character during the last 6 months are reimbursed.
Pros: (almost) everybody wants it!
Cons: lots of issues need to be resolved before the merging.
What are the characteristics of a dying world?
- 50% of the player base at level 75 and above;
- most players belong to one or more fully built towns (even if they don't reside in one, they have one or more towns they call "home").
- most forts are fully built, all forts have their towers, walls and barracks maxed out.
Issues to be considered:
1. Character merging
1.1. Don't merge, reset the characters to level 1 (disastrous, will effectively kill the world)
1.2. If a player has a character in only one world, the character will be unaffected in the new world.
1.3. If the player has characters in both worlds:
1.3.1. Give players the option to keep one character, and delete the other with no compensation (unfair);
1.3.2. Give players the option to keep one character, and relocate the other in a different world (seems fair);
1.3.2.1. Allow movement only to a mature world the player doesn't have a character in;
1.3.2.2. Allow movement to any mature world, replacing the character held in that world.
1.3.3. Give players the option to keep one character, and offer compensation for deleting the other, under one or more of the following forms:
1.3.3.1. reimburse the nuggets spent, partially or completely (seems fair);
1.3.3.2. offer compensation for the money of the deleted character:
- transfer the funds to the other character (unfair, makes character too rich);
- transfer the funds, capped at a fixed amount (seems fair).
1.3.3.3. offer compensation for the gear of the deleted character:
- merge the inventories of the two characters (unfair, makes them too rich compared to players with one character);
- allow a limited number of items to be carried over to the other character (seems fair);
- replace the inventory with its sales value, and treat it under the rules for money - see 1.3.3.2 (unfair, strips characters of named weapons, belts and pants);
- middle ground, allow a limited number of items to be carried over, and reimburse the sales value of the rest, under the rules for money - see 1.3.3.2 (seems most fair);
1.3.3.4. offer compensation for the products of the deleted character:
- under the same rules as for the gear;
- under different rules, for example treat an entire stack of products as one piece of gear (seems more fair).
1.3.3.5. offer compensation for the buffs and crafted items of the deleted character:
- under the same rules as for the gear;
- under different rules, for example treat an entire stack of buffs as one piece of gear (seems more fair).
1.3.3.6. offer compensation for the crafting level (doesn't seem necessary);
1.3.3.7. offer compensation for the skillset (doesn't seem necessary);
1.3.3.8. offer other forms of compensation:
- reset the shaman price for reskilling;
- reset the time penalty for joining a town.
1.4. If a player has two characters under two different names: let affected players submit a ticket, and solve the issue the same way as case 1.3.
2. Town merging
2.1. Don't merge, let the world be rebuilt from zero (very unfair)
2.2. Discard all ghost towns (seems fair);
2.3. If town location is occupied in only one world, move the town to the new world (seems fair);
2.4. If the location is occupied in both worlds:
2.4.1. Keep the larger town in its place, relocate the smaller town in the closest available space (seems fair);
2.4.2. Merge the population of the small town into the larger one; eventually, based on the number of points of the small town, add some funds into the treasury of the large town (not likely to work, drama might happen).
2.5. If two towns have the same name in both worlds, the larger town keeps the name, the smaller one's name is changed automatically to something random (fair, owners of the smaller town will have to rename it).
3. Fort merging
3.1. Don't merge, let the forts be rebuilt from zero (unfair, lots of resources have been poured into the forts);
3.2. Keep the most developed fort in place, but remove all ownership (seems fair);
3.3. Same as 3.2, but offer the funds necessary for a fort attack to the treasury of the owning town in both worlds (more fair);
3.4. Double the number of towns that can own a fort, and let all former owners own the fort together (not likely to work, plus it affects the world's structure).
4. Alliance merging
4.1. Disband all alliances, let new alliances form (fair);
4.2. Keep the alliances from both worlds (more fair);
4.2.1 In case two alliances have the same name, the larger alliance keeps its name, the smaller alliance's name is changed to something random.
What I propose:
- Merge the worlds, discarding any ghost towns;
- If there are duplicate towns in the same spot, move the smaller one to the nearest available spot;
- Remove ownership of the forts, and reimburse the cost of one fort attack to the owning town's treasury (in both worlds);
- Keep the most developed fort in place, and discard the other;
- Keep the alliances from both worlds in place;
- If there are towns or alliances with the same name in both worlds, rename the smaller ones to something random;
- In case a player has characters in both worlds, offer the possibility to:
a) either relocate one character to a different mature world, eventually replacing the character currently held in that world, or
b) delete one of the characters at the player's choice, allowing the player to select 5 objects to be transferred to the remaining character. The objects can be individual pieces of gear, stacks of products, or stacks of crafted items/buffs. Items that cannot be sold cannot be transferred either. The rest of the gear will be converted into money; a maximum of $50000 is transferred to the remaining character as banked money (not as cash, to avoid duel frenzies). Stats, medals and achievements are not transferred. Nuggets spent on the deleted character during the last 6 months are reimbursed.
Last edited by a moderator:
DeletedUser
For the most part, everything you said was reasonable until the last few sentences. $50000 is pocket change on an old world. They're old, established characters. Money is pretty much meaningless besides for respeccing, but even so, try to take it away for no real reason and there will be an uproar. I see no reason for any cash or gear limitations whatsoever.
Stats and achievements also give no real benefit besides rewards. Clearing them will give you something to do, but there will be a lot of resistance to having to redo everything they've already done. If people are bored, they need more content, not reliving every single bit of the old content for a second time on an old character.
DeletedUser22493
If the inventories are merged, that would be like playing 2 characters on the same world and using one to push the other. Really unfair to everyone else on the server.
DeletedUser
That's why I added the option to move one character to a different server.
I only play W4 and W5, and these two worlds might be the first ones to be merged. If the option to move one character to a different world, I'll use that.
I'm thinking about this merger since the rumors appeared more than half year ago. As an affected party, I'm probably subjective, but tried to be as impartial as possible.
- Forcing players to delete one character without compensation is unfair. For a long time I vowed to delete both my characters if it comes to that. Players that still play in these worlds (including myself), play because they are content with what they have achieved, and have further goals. Deleting one character is equivalent to forcing these players out of the game.
- Doing a full merger of the inventories is unfair towards the players having a character in only one of the worlds. The 'dying' worlds are about 3 years old, a full merger is like having had two characters for the last 3 years, and using one to push the other.
- Doing a partial merger of the inventories tries to keep a balance between unfairness towards the players with two characters, and unfairness towards players with one. 5 items and $50k allows players with two characters to save their named weapons, belts and pants, while not making them super-rich.
- Allowing the affected players to move one of the characters to a different world seems the most fair. Players with two characters will keep both their characters unaffected, and players with one character won't be facing richer opponents.
I added the other options and suboptions to cover as many situations as possible: players that play in most/all worlds, players who use premium, players who joined the worlds recently, players who collected hundreds of fishing rods, or who collected shiny weapons, etc.
DeletedUser
Sorry, I completely missed the line that it was just for cases of characters on both worlds. Still, while your solution might be good for the case of only merging any two worlds, it will be a bigger problem for merging more than two worlds, which seems necessary to me. If you merged two worlds with 1500 players each, I doubt the merged world will have more than 2000-2500 players because of duplicates. With two worlds being merged, only people who play on a huge number of worlds will really be affected, and I would think that anyone who plays on 15 worlds wouldn't be too attached to individual characters in comparison to people who only play on a few worlds, though I'm sure some of them will disagree. If you merged, say, w2-w9 into one world, many more people would be affected.
Last edited by a moderator:
DeletedUser16008
Being its taking such a long time indeed you should be looking at merging worlds 2 - 10 asap to one world or using w2 - 6 and w7 - 10 to create 2 worlds.
People are leaving all the time and a lot i see on many worlds are the same players, in fact id say as much as 20% maybe more of all old worlds are players with toons on the others as well.
People are leaving all the time and a lot i see on many worlds are the same players, in fact id say as much as 20% maybe more of all old worlds are players with toons on the others as well.
DeletedUser
World merge could be too complicated to do and we could end up waiting a looooong time.
How about creation of NEW world, completely empty of any towns, forts etc...
Players on W2-10 have an option to transfer ONE character to new world with all skills, exp, cash, inventory, achievements...
Keep worlds 2-10 alive and those who wish to stay, let them play there.
However, since majority will transfer one character to new world, those old worlds will die very quickly cause people will get bored.
I only play on W4 and can hardly wait for merger/new_world so probably someone else who play on multiple old worlds might give opinion on this.
How about creation of NEW world, completely empty of any towns, forts etc...
Players on W2-10 have an option to transfer ONE character to new world with all skills, exp, cash, inventory, achievements...
Keep worlds 2-10 alive and those who wish to stay, let them play there.
However, since majority will transfer one character to new world, those old worlds will die very quickly cause people will get bored.
I only play on W4 and can hardly wait for merger/new_world so probably someone else who play on multiple old worlds might give opinion on this.
DeletedUser
Fafer, bad idea. Far too much drama would ensue. Then again, maybe I just didnt understand you proposal.
DJ Storm, a very well thought out proposal. In fact, I strongly urge you to present your entire post to Diggo, so that it may br discussed with the othe CMs and the PM.
DJ Storm, a very well thought out proposal. In fact, I strongly urge you to present your entire post to Diggo, so that it may br discussed with the othe CMs and the PM.
DeletedUser
There are 16700 characters in worlds 2-10. I suspect that on average, a player has 3 characters in these 9 worlds. Merging the worlds won't result in a world with 16.7 players, instead there will be ~6000 players. A move that results in losing 10+ thousand characters is a bad move, in my opinion.
Merging worlds is a delicate move. If players are forced to keep just one character and delete the others, some players will choose to delete all and be over with the game, resulting in a further drop in the number of players.
The option to relocate a character is necessary, in order to keep these characters in game. But in order to relocate, there needs to be enough worlds to relocate to. Allowing a level 120 player to move to Colorado would be bad, movements should be restricted to mature worlds.
I propose to merge worlds 4+5, fix the bugs that appear, then merge worlds 2+3, 6+7 and 8+9. Allow players with two characters in the worlds that are being merged to move one to worlds 1-10. If further mergers are necessary, those will be done later.
I play W4 and W5 only. These worlds currently have 1555 players each. After the merger, they will have ~2500 players. If allowed, I will move one character to a different world, and probably the other ~600 players will do the same. When the other worlds will merge, some players will relocate to world 4+5, raising the number of players back to 3000+.
HelenBack
Well-Known Member
Just wondering if there has been any more consideration for merging the older worlds...
There are 2 blogs about it as well:
http://blog.the-west.net/index.php/2011/04/merging-worlds/
http://blog.the-west.net/index.php/2011/08/world-merging-revisited/#comments
I'm about to leave some worlds... Not much on the Market to try and complete your Collector's Set... Have to look all over for people to duel. At least I try not to duel my neighbours too often since I don't want to tick them off so they leave... making the world even emptier.
So... what's going on with the merge(s)? Will it ever happen or...
:tumble:
There are 2 blogs about it as well:
http://blog.the-west.net/index.php/2011/04/merging-worlds/
http://blog.the-west.net/index.php/2011/08/world-merging-revisited/#comments
I'm about to leave some worlds... Not much on the Market to try and complete your Collector's Set... Have to look all over for people to duel. At least I try not to duel my neighbours too often since I don't want to tick them off so they leave... making the world even emptier.
So... what's going on with the merge(s)? Will it ever happen or...
:tumble:
DeletedUser2708
About all you're going to get asking that question in the forums is a lot of speculation from people who have no real idea. You'll have far better luck messaging the devs directly.
DeletedUser563
Well imo we should discuss this. I also want to play less characters and would ideally play only 1, (6 lost its appeal when game mastered events stopped) 7, arizona, colorado and beta.
Just thinking about it I would say either forts should be split up evenly when there is a conflict by negotiation if the sides cannot agree then the moderators must sync that forts:by calling 1 battle a day on defense and 1 on attack for the joined owners:all other battles disabled. Most DI over 2 battles keeps the fort. Think their multiple operations means the chosing of recipes, skills whatever so that would solve the scenario where you are different classes and crafts or one should be able to chose a craft as well as inventories is merged and you continue as highest level over 2 worlds.
Just thinking about it I would say either forts should be split up evenly when there is a conflict by negotiation if the sides cannot agree then the moderators must sync that forts:by calling 1 battle a day on defense and 1 on attack for the joined owners:all other battles disabled. Most DI over 2 battles keeps the fort. Think their multiple operations means the chosing of recipes, skills whatever so that would solve the scenario where you are different classes and crafts or one should be able to chose a craft as well as inventories is merged and you continue as highest level over 2 worlds.
DeletedUser13388
If they merge the worlds, the best for all will be if the towns and the forts are not build.Like we start a new world, just we wont be level 1, we will keep our current level.
If the merged world starts with no built forts, that will be much more interesting, cause the forts will change their owners pretty often, until they get fully built.It will bring some actions and drama.
So in my opinion, only the characters should be kept, but not the forts and the towns.
If the merged world starts with no built forts, that will be much more interesting, cause the forts will change their owners pretty often, until they get fully built.It will bring some actions and drama.
So in my opinion, only the characters should be kept, but not the forts and the towns.
DeletedUser16008
Far too little far too late... we have passed the point of no return already... dont kid yourselves itll make any difference merging a few hundred players together and thats all we are talking on older worlds as about 50% are multi world players.
DeletedUser563
well if they can get the recipe right they can repeat this. say they merged 6 and 7 and they merged 8 and 9. After a few days of the merge running smoothly they can then merge the 2 merge world thereby merging 6,7,8 and 9 .
But I dont agree you should start over with forts. People invested a lot of time in building up their forts. Why I say a phase of negotiation is because most likely alliances will form new partnerships or joint alliances quickly anyway. In that time the fort is under the ownership of the older world but there is an embargo (not certain of the word) on fort fights. As soon as all deals have passed then we go over to the second phase were the co fort owners who didnt want a deal battle it out. So hopefully then you will have say 10-20 such forts and can finalize the merge in 40 days. As to towns:the only problem I see is players who is in 2 worlds they can then just choose the town of their choice. If there is a map error well I'm certain this can be sorted out by the developers. Other than that the rest can be sorted out by a simple merger of inventories and perhaps a free skill reset for duplicate players and then finally a selection of gameplay choices such as character type and craft. No biggie.
@victor kruger:thats kind of a defeatist attitude that would help nobody. So your suggestion is we let them die of. if a world have more players it already helps a lot. Finally when you have say 3-4 worlds you will start to reap the rewards.
But I dont agree you should start over with forts. People invested a lot of time in building up their forts. Why I say a phase of negotiation is because most likely alliances will form new partnerships or joint alliances quickly anyway. In that time the fort is under the ownership of the older world but there is an embargo (not certain of the word) on fort fights. As soon as all deals have passed then we go over to the second phase were the co fort owners who didnt want a deal battle it out. So hopefully then you will have say 10-20 such forts and can finalize the merge in 40 days. As to towns:the only problem I see is players who is in 2 worlds they can then just choose the town of their choice. If there is a map error well I'm certain this can be sorted out by the developers. Other than that the rest can be sorted out by a simple merger of inventories and perhaps a free skill reset for duplicate players and then finally a selection of gameplay choices such as character type and craft. No biggie.
@victor kruger:thats kind of a defeatist attitude that would help nobody. So your suggestion is we let them die of. if a world have more players it already helps a lot. Finally when you have say 3-4 worlds you will start to reap the rewards.
DeletedUser16008
Meh, this has been going on for well over a year jakks and nothing is even on the table yet, please don't tell me im being defeatist when old worlds have dropped 50% in population whilst this ridiculous procrastinating has been going on... I don't have another 2 years to wait thx
Reset the whole thing for all I care but for nooblets sake get on with it if inno are going to, if not then let us know and i can delete even more worlds and have done with it.
DeletedUser563
its in the 2012 roadmap ... as far as i know its wasnt in the 2011 roadmap
DeletedUser14006
It may not have been in the roadmap but it is an idea that has been dragged out for a stupendously long time.
Remember we had a poll about it last year in May.
Then we had a mention of it again in August on the west blog with much more detail and suggestion that it may actually be a reality once things settle in light of Zet's departure.
This is one of the longest drawn out, much required ideas in the games history and much needed to counter the mistake Inno made by releasing too many worlds in such a short space of time.