Worlds dying off !!!

[DeletedUser]

What I was actually referring to was give the players the choice to migrate to a more active world. If everyone flocks to active worlds of course the deader worlds will become deader. However, if they become empty then the world can be deleted.

Nothing from the player's side deleted and more activity generated within active worlds.

Just a thought.

It sounds like a good direction Da. Whenever you're ready for such, just lock w2-w10, no new accts:

w1 --- 5009
w11 --- 5732
w12 --- 18782
Arizona --- 8238
Briscoe --- 6436
Colorado --- 15454

Those would be the worlds looking most attractive, however I can see a problem with World 1, being that it is classic. Someone could utilize a buttload of nuggets to boost their character, then ask to be moved to w1 and "pwn" the codgers. So, probably shouldn't allow transition to w1, only w11 thru Colorado.

Might also need some more ingame mod hands to manage the transition period. Let me know, I think I still remember how to press buttons. *smirk*

 

[DeletedUser563]

Level 10 is a few hours work, max.

Like I said they could decide on the scale . Its their nuggets anyway Elmyr . Im certain it will take a few months for their dwarves to mine the nuggets but in the end I think it will be worth it :laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh:

And what can you do with 50 nuggets anyway? And yes you could lock the world for new accounts like my friend HS pointed out.

Hellstromm the idea would mean you could not move the nuggets from the new worlds to any other worlds to prevent abuse.

 

[DeletedUser]

Hellstromm the idea would mean you could not move the nuggets from the new worlds to any other worlds to prevent abuse.

Oh ye of little insight. Nuggets are attached to the account, not to the worlds in which a character has been created. I.e., it's universal.

 

[DeletedUser563]

Oh ye of little insight. Nuggets are attached to the account, not to the worlds in which a character has been created. I.e., it's universal.

Alucard we are not one the same page I think . I was in fact referring to an earlier post by me

PS

!kcen ym kcus ton od esaelp

 

[DeletedUser]

Oh ye of little insight. Nuggets are attached to the account, not to the worlds in which a character has been created. I.e., it's universal.

Yep, that was my point. Have one world, start on 14, take a little bit of time to level them to 10, 500 nuggets.

 

[DeletedUser]

Aye, well there's a feature that records how many nuggets were actually spent (not sure if it is recorded by world, or nuggets in total for the acct). If it's an issue of nuggets, maybe they could partially reimburse (via nuggets) for what was lost according to how much was spent on a particular world that is being closed. As to level gifting, I would say ingame cash only, no nuggets.

To be honest, there's only a handful of players with mid-high level characters in more than 5 worlds. I don't see this as being an issue. The handful of players losing characters, because they have 6+ characters already active, that is no doubt going to need to be addressed but it's no reason to keep the boat from sailing.

 

[DeletedUser8627]

Ps its called thinking out of the box

Taking me as example so affected worlds world 6,7,8,9
Jakkals world 6 - level 72 = 2160 nuggets
world 7 -level 92 (this will be the character I continue with)
world 8 - (actually new world in which I planned to torture the whole world block by block) - level 10 = 50 nuggets
world 9 - level 67 = 2010 nuggets
-----------------------------------------
4220 nuggets for 2 characters lost that i played for more than a year. But still acceptable. I would probably buy some premium chests with this.

Your thinking out the box lacks a little logic here. With this route, worlds at this stage don't close down or get deleted.

IF a route like this was to be considered, obviously there would be the option to choose between a few different worlds we would set and not just one. We have 14 worlds not considering world 1 at this stage due to it being on the classic premium system. We also have two other premium systems, enhanced and full. So just by the premium systems alone we have to have two active worlds set, neh? Now considering the players playing in more than two worlds, I'm guessing here but I think on average a player plays between 2 - 4 worlds.

The point is, we are not trying to remove as many worlds as we possibly can, we are trying to get players who want the activity to get together. As HS posted, there are 5 worlds with quite a bit of activity in them (Pity on full premium), 5 worlds would be a good consideration to start with I think and covers some of your characters, not to mention worlds don't close or get deleted.

Premium systems would be an issue but I don't see the harm in allowing a player on enhanced premium to have the option to move to a full premium world. Obviously not vice versa in this case.

We can even go as far as giving world 1 players who want the UPS to migrate to a world where nuggets can be used and then remove nugget purchasing from this shop for those who oppose it.

But at the end of the day if you are wanting to gain free nuggets by opening every world, we can then also calculate infringements on a player's accounts and start deducting nuggets too. What's good for the goose is good for the gander.

EDIT^^

 

[DeletedUser563]

But at the end of the day if you are wanting to gain free nuggets by opening every world, we can then also calculate infringements on a player's accounts and start deducting nuggets too. What's good for the goose is good for the gander.

EDIT^^

Me am just a misunderstood young lad . I calculated two more think HS also world 1, world 10 - 15. Dont know about world 10 really. From HS responses in the idea section"appoint new devs "idea I deduce that he is still a part of a "moderator forum". As that was out of the horses mouth about. We are just the "gepeupel". Our impression of what would work comes from the game players point of view. Moving for me with 3 game characters to active worlds is impossible. I play actively as well world 1, arizona, briscoe and colorado. That leaves 11 and 12. You cannot change world 1. It has a totally different algorithms etc in fort fights for example. It has the most experienced players as well in the game. Throwing the old codgers(in HS words we prefer foggies) into a new world would be like releasing a bunch of serial killers in a kindergarten. So lets count 1, 11(elmyrs world),12,arizona ,briscoe and colorado. Or is there problems there as well. I want to play less worlds in fact. Therefore I want to move 3 to 1 world. But have bought nuggets in 6,7 and 9. Also 8 is a new path. So you see sweeten the deal. After all instead of paying us in nuggets you could bestow upon us a killer starter pack or give us a limited time to use the nuggets in that new world or a choice of world. The problem I see is with forts that is why I suggested new world and nuggets as compensation. You know I presume what a golden handshake is. With forts I mean we would not want our forts to be taken away in active worlds. Also fort fight in world 1 is like world championship chess meaning you have unlimited time to make your moves and know your opponents strength exactly. This would probably mean a lot of new unknown players that want to bark orders at the foggies etc etc. And change the game dynamics in that worlds as its easier to get GG in other worlds due to reset shaman. yet we would also want new players. Difficult one ..perhaps only non GG players may make the move to world 1 or limited GG's. So you see indeed there is huge dilemma we want more players but do we want another 400 GG's for example. And we have a current no multi rule successfully in place for months now. Very difficult one. The social mix will be difficult but new world means new start new alliances etc etc. perhaps all the CM's across all servers must take a selection of ideas and discuss it between them.

I have no altruistic motives btw but it seemed a way to soften the blow to many long time players that does not really cost you anything as it is just ones and zero after all that you are losing.. Like I say you could make it so that it does not compete with existing nuggets. How are you anyway going to compensate a player like me for his player that is lost? And I dont think I am a unique case even.

Well I can test this if you want in ideas. I did see a considerable spark in activity after posting it yesterday.

 

[DeletedUser]

Jakkals, I'm not part of Da Twista's staff. I have experience working with the tools (having previously cmed here, trained Da and others) and put a simple offer out there to him if he needs assist in moving characters. Now kindly stop fixating on me.

As to the rest of your post... wow, what a ramble. Merging worlds is not "a deal," it's a strongly worded request by a multitude of players. There will undoubtedly be efforts to appease players, but there's a breaking point. As it is, Inno (developers and otherwise) made a lot of effort to make it so a merging/transfer could happen in the first place, and there's still the work associated with doing it, which lands firmly on the CM's lap. Trying to muddy up the waters will only delay it further. Da Twista, and his respective staff, is more than capable of figuring out the details without your nonsensical musings.

 

[DeletedUser]

FWIW, taking the cue from several other online games, comparable to what Inno offers in The West, world mergers usually involve creating a brand new world, often 'physically' larger (by this I mean, as an example, the new West merged world would be 10x5, for example) and asking players to move to this world.

They also state that 'World x, x+1, and y' will be deleted, thereby effectively forcing people to move. Yes, you lose a few along the way, but that's life, it happens. Regardless of being fair.

In this case, again just for example, create 3-5 new superworlds, ask everyone to move, and you're left with a very small percentage of players will who will be 'forced to delete more than 1 character'.

Then decide for these forced deletes:
1. Delete with no compensation
2. Delete with minimal compensation
3. Delete with significant upfront incentive (like say $1m in in-game cash)

 

[DeletedUser]

Just wondering, is merge considered only on .net or also on .de servers?

If it is also considered on .de servers, it will be done as they decide there as usually. Our suggestions will not be considered

 

[DeletedUser563]

On all worlds considered dead over all servers. It was in the roadmap.

A further point Da Twista how will your plan work in regards quests. If I walk over to another world and can do all the quests over I will be overpowered. Not that I am not already overpowered but then even more

 

[DeletedUser8627]

On all worlds considered dead over all servers. It was in the roadmap.

A further point Da Twista how will your plan work in regards quests. If I walk over to another world and can do all the quests over I will be overpowered. Not that I am not already overpowered but then even more

I suggest you don't take part in this discussion any longer, you are now rambling on over gaming features that has no relevance to this idea.

One would think, if a character is moved to another world, the stats and achievements would also move across which will disallow a player to repeat the quests indicated on a profile as already done.

Just wondering, is merge considered only on .net or also on .de servers?

If it is also considered on .de servers, it will be done as they decide there as usually. Our suggestions will not be considered

You have a slight misconception regarding the .de server.

Just because .de gets all the new releases first, mainly to check if the new game mechanics work, does not mean that .net doesn't have a say in the new features we provide. New features are discussed with all the CMs from all servers before a final decision is made.

 

[DeletedUser]

Is there any consideration of moving a character from .net to .de world for example?

 

[DeletedUser8627]

Is there any consideration of moving a character from .net to .de world for example?

This won't be possible due to .net and .de being completely different markets.

 

[DeletedUser]

A further point Da Twista how will your plan work in regards quests. If I walk over to another world and can do all the quests over I will be overpowered. Not that I am not already overpowered but then even more

Quests are tagged with a character, within the database. It is not known how the developers intend on managing this issue, although more likely it will be converting characters into modules (quest tags included), if they're not already setup as modules, and adding a "world" field which defines what world a character is assigned. As you're not a programmer for Innogames, and it is not relevant to this discussion (as Da has indicated), you may want to consider not troubling your pretty little head over it.




Returning to the discussion ---

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.

I didn't include your entire post. Your proposal, I feel, is too convoluted and doesn't resolve the issue of characters in two merging worlds. As indicated by Da, it seems the more effective means will be to close certain worlds (2-10 seems best, as they are the dead worlds) and allow players to move their characters to the active worlds (not inclusive of w1 - classic). That leaves worlds 11 - 15. That's 5 worlds, all of which are already pretty busy and would benefit from more participants and more drama associated with a dynamic population shift.

All good in the long run, and that's what really counts here.

There is no easy answer here. We've all heard the options and ALL have good and bad points. I just want Inno to make a call on it with the view to increase player participation. End of story.

Agreed McCoy, it is ultimately up to Innogames how the merging will happen. The community has made a request, Innogames is working to accommodate that request. The manner and means, well that's just really up to what they can do and how much time they have to do it.

 

[DeletedUser16008]

Q
Returning to the discussion ---

It seems the more effective means will be to close certain worlds (2-10 seems best, as they are the dead worlds) and allow players to move their characters to the active worlds (not inclusive of w1 - classic). That leaves worlds 11 - 15. That's 5 worlds, all of which are already pretty busy and would benefit from more participants and more drama associated with a dynamic population shift.

All well and good. Not bothered about the fact that id have to move 4 tons from old worlds to newer apart from the fact that the newer are pay to play and nugget buying whereas the older are not...

Colorado is ok i believe being point buying free but 11 through to Brisco isnt. I would have suggested older worlds 2 - 9 to be allowed to go to W10 and Colorado if they wish to continue expanded premium worlds and not the full monty.

Maybe let people go to w1 as well if they dont wish to be stuck with nugget toons to compete with. I'm not sure about other players but i avoided the pay to play worlds on purpose. Id rather lose toons than be forced to play on uneven worlds.

Other than that sure a merge needs to be done,

 

[DeletedUser]

All well and good. Not bothered about the fact that id have to move 4 tons from old worlds to newer apart from the fact that the newer are pay to play and nugget buying whereas the older are not...

Items associated with your character would likely be attached to them in the moving of a character (assuming they go the sane route of converting characters into sub-database modules, if that isn't already the case). As to expanded nugget purchasing instead of "full" nugget purchasing, it obviously wasn't very popular or worlds 2-10 wouldn't be so dang empty. In any event, the impact of the extra nugget features is minimal. I don't see a point in dramatizing it.

 

[DeletedUser16008]

Items associated with your character would likely be attached to them in the moving of a character (assuming they go the sane route of converting characters into sub-database modules, if that isn't already the case). As to expanded nugget purchasing instead of "full" nugget purchasing, it obviously wasn't very popular or worlds 2-10 wouldn't be so dang empty. In any event, the impact of the extra nugget features is minimal. I don't see a point in dramatizing it.

sigh* here we go again you know the main reason 2 - 10 are so empty is down to the timescale they were opened over. W1 isnt flat now is it ?

I point out something that everyone on older worlds will have to deal with and straight away your in with the baiting. Meh ! whenever you play that card its usually because I see an angle inno are playing and as usual you right in on the defensive. Your sooo predictable HS its untrue.

So how about it ? letting some migrate to W1 as an alternative ? personally id rather go there than play the keep up with the Joneses on a nugget munching world with an old toon.

 

[DeletedUser]

sigh* here we go again you know the main reason 2 - 10 are so empty is down to the timescale they were opened over. W1 isnt flat now is it ?

W1 isn't flat because it was huge from the onset, as high as 30k at one point if I recall. At 5k, it's a shadow of its former state and still far smaller than worlds 11-15.

In any event, it is true that worlds 2-10 do not have nugget purchase for stats, so perhaps allowing transition to w1 is acceptable.

(( now, once again, quit with the dramatics ))