The Way Forward

[Kai]

You have identified two problems: Getting new players, and keeping existing players. If we did somehow magically get 100% retention, then I can guarantee you that eventually, all our player density problems would be solved. It may take a while, but we would eventually get to where we wanted to be, if no one ever left.

That's not even true because equally magical could be a 0 joining rate, which would make 100% retention meaningless. Also people die. Retention should still be divided into new and old player retention. Smiley faces are obnoxious.

These are both problems that we know exist. We have identified the problems, and many people have frequently pointed them out. The question isn't "What are our problems?", it's "How can we fix our problems?"

Is it difficult to read quoted posts? I was replying to a person who specifically asked me what the problems were.

I think you might be surprised what efforts people will try to make when their favorite island is at stake.

I really can't comprehend this type of thinking. It's like saying that people are most productive under gunpoint.

[Penchant]

I really can't comprehend this type of thinking. It's like saying that people are most productive under gunpoint.

No but they do usually put their highest effort into it. And since they aren't going to be shot, I see the stress of possible dying being a lot less thus its not a completely bad idea. Should we just do that and hope it works? No, because it won't work long term even if it does short term somewhat.

[Kai]

No but they do usually put their highest effort into it. And since they aren't going to be shot, I see the stress of possible dying being a lot less thus its not a completely bad idea. Should we just do that and hope it works? No, because it won't work long term even if it does short term somewhat.

Highest effort != best results.

[Penchant]

Highest effort != best results.

Most productive=best results basically, and I clearly said that the highest effort was not being the most productive ipso facto, I already that highest efforts doesn't equal best results already. You complain about others supposedly not reading your posts, yet that was rather clear so I feel it might be the other way around.

[Kai]

You said it might not be a completely bad idea, but wouldn't work in the long term. tbh your post is pretty hard to understand

[Indirik]

Mod note: Hotmail slams removed. People use it. Deal with it. If you want to slag off on Hotmail, go to the General Talk board.

[Indirik]

That's not even true because equally magical could be a 0 joining rate, which would make 100% retention meaningless. Also people die. Retention should still be divided into new and old player retention.

So, he's not a true Scotsman, eh? Retconning initial conditions doesn't make your original assumptions any better. It just gets us into an endless loop of "Well, if we have this condition, too..."

Smiley faces are obnoxious.

Deal. We all have to put up with stuff we consider obnoxious.

Is it difficult to read quoted posts? I was replying to a person who specifically asked me what the problems were.

You didn't quote anything. It's pretty silly to try to slam someone for not reading your quoted material, when you don't quote anything.

And I know what you were replying to. I was acknowledging the fact that the problems you listed are known to the dev team. And that the four problems you identified are really only two problems: Finding new players, and retaining players.

[Wolfang]

So, yeah, concerning my Hotmail suggestion, is there a reason for the barring of hotmail users or is it just because Tom dislikes hotmail?

[Anaris]

There are historical reasons for it, but I already have some changes prepared to the account signup process (they just need final testing before going live) that include removing that restriction.

[Stue (DC)]

Instead of letting people discuss like before, why not only allow people to post news or information?

Disallow people from commenting on each other's posts. That way we may avoid people bickering over senseless stuff again.

yes, that would work exactly as newspapers on wiki worked before, while there could possibly be easier to manage and edit such newspapers in forums format.

[egamma]

yes, that would work exactly as newspapers on wiki worked before, while there could possibly be easier to manage and edit such newspapers in forums format.

Forum format is no better than wiki format, which is the current "gold standard" as far as newspaper formatting. Tom doesn't want a "blog" where the newspaper is just a scrolling list of articles; he wants a "front page" view like a real newspaper.

[Anaris]

Forum format is no better than wiki format, which is the current "gold standard" as far as newspaper formatting. Tom doesn't want a "blog" where the newspaper is just a scrolling list of articles; he wants a "front page" view like a real newspaper.

...Which is not something BM newspapers have generally had.

As has been said previously, the major problem with making a BM newspaper like that right now is that it needs a lot of articles to put out a discrete "edition." Given that, and that most BM newspapers in the past were, in fact, pretty much in blog format, I don't see any sense to the idea that a BM Wiki newspaper needs a proper broadsheet layout.

[Penchant]

You said it might not be a completely bad idea, but wouldn't work in the long term. tbh your post is pretty hard to understand

Its precisely that. While it might help with people making the game better for a little while, eventually they will go back to normal and it doesn't solve anything long term.

[Buffalkill]

Its precisely that. While it might help with people making the game better for a little while, eventually they will go back to normal and it doesn't solve anything long term.

Relaxing the character limits strikes the right balance between heavy-handed and soft-touch approaches. Some people have already given reasons why this is not a perfect fix, the main argument being: more characters per player will = less playing time per character. To that I say, I'd rather be in a realm with 30 characters, of whom 10 are really engaged, than in a realm with 10 characters who are all bored. The argument also pre-supposes that every player is playing at maximum capacity, which we know is not true. There is no permanent silver bullet long-term fix, so we should stop using that as a baseline criteria and start looking at some short-term remedies. It's a dynamic game with many moving parts, and it's to be expected that character levels will ebb and flow over time. If, in 6 months from now, we have the problem of too many characters, then we can always tweak the rules again. I posted a few suggestions earlier and I'm re-posting them now:

• Rather than increasing +1 every 12 months, every 9 or 10 months instead.
• Offer a +1 to certain players on the condition that their character will be in a fledgling realm or island.
• Give out more medals
• Give a fam/honour/prestige boost to players who go to fledgling, or less desirable realms or islands.

[Wolfang]

I was lucky when playing and got several medals within a month of playing for a couple of RP's I had written. I feel that the ones that handed the medals out to me were aware of the lack in medal-giving and actively gave out medals (since this issue had been broached on the forums once or twice)? What I think is that people with medals to give should be reminded they can give out medals, as maybe older players sometimes forget? I don't know since, as I said, I haven't played that long and maybe this isn't the issue.

I wouldn't know how such a notification system would be implemented, or if it is even necessary. Older-player feedback would be necessary on this.