Ice is Nice

[Indirik]

...realms like Morek and Luria, Astrum etc were some of the original founded realms on an empty continent and what we did in the west was constant struggle from day one and they chose to destroy all of our hard work and then left the favoured realms in the east continent with no struggle at all. Asylon fought hard for what it had, and so did Barca and D'Hara and Niselur.

FWIW - Astrum was not an original realm. Astrum had an even more difficult time carving itself out of the monster-infested wilderness than Asylon did. And we had to deal with player-driven threats and wars as well. The current incarnation of Niselur didn't ever really have to fight for much at all. With the exception of the war they started, it's been a cake walk for them.

Every realm on Dwilight had to fight hard for what it has. Some have been at it longer, and have had more success. Some not. It's extremely disingenuous of you to claim that every realm on your side of the political divide had to fight hard and struggle against adversity, while every realm on the other side of the political divide got everything hand-fed to them with a silver spoon.

[Lorgan]

I'd have thought you Asylonians would be overjoyed with the opportunity to become a migrating, conquering horde.

[Indirik]

I think that everyone understands and agrees actions have to be taken to increase the noble density in the game. Where it goes wrong i think is that the devs try not to look at the current state of a continent before taking an action and only look at the potential end result. By this approach they underestimate the damage done during the change process.

The decision had to be made without taking the political situation of the continent into account. Attempting to take politics into account opens the entire process up into the realm of favoritism and partiality. Do you really want the devs attempting to interpret the political state of the continent, and then deciding which realms to wipe out? I can guarantee to you that if we did, the political state of all of the islands would be quite different, and much more massively disrupted, then actually happened. And I can also guarantee that almost no one would like the outcome. And that almost everyone would be pissed off at the dev team, and no one would agree on what was done.

Politics-based GM intervention has been tried before, in the early stages of the game. The fallout from the player-base was massive, and extremely negative. It simply can't be done.

If your particular realm was harmed in this evolution, I'm sorry. You're not the only one who's realm got destroyed. (And apparently Asylon managed to rally and take Unterstrom? Go Asylon!) But imagine how much worse it would be for you if the devs came forward and said "We destroyed your realm on purpose, because we feel the game is better off without it."

[Atanamir]

The decision had to be made without taking the political situation of the continent into account. Attempting to take politics into account opens the entire process up into the realm of favoritism and partiality. Do you really want the devs attempting to interpret the political state of the continent, and then deciding which realms to wipe out? I can guarantee to you that if we did, the political state of all of the islands would be quite different, and much more massively disrupted, then actually happened. And I can also guarantee that almost no one would like the outcome. And that almost everyone would be pissed off at the dev team, and no one would agree on what was done.

Politics-based GM intervention has been tried before, in the early stages of the game. The fallout from the player-base was massive, and extremely negative. It simply can't be done.

If your particular realm was harmed in this evolution, I'm sorry. You're not the only one who's realm got destroyed. (And apparently Asylon managed to rally and take Unterstrom? Go Asylon!) But imagine how much worse it would be for you if the devs came forward and said "We destroyed your realm on purpose, because we feel the game is better off without it."

I think D'Este meant that the decision itsself to do what is done now, was more focussing towards an end result and less thought out on the effects it now has.
Instead of losing one continent or one realm per player (if one island would have been closed for example), now many more players on many continents lose many more realms than only one. All continents have remained but during the changes of them, most of players already give up (as no matter where you go, there again ice and monsters hunting you).
In the end, it's a bigger GM intervention than the dev team probably would have thought in the beginning (being focussed only on the density thing, but players feel more than just being called a number, something that I personally see that should have been better communicated during this whole thing).

[Glaumring the Fox]

Dwilight was perfect as it was. Im still having fun but its tinged with regret for what could have been with Dwilight finally being influenced by an ascendent west. Now, we are a rabble of refugees playing as invaders to a land we wanted nothing to do with. To get away from the huge Astroist alliances we fought hard to forge our own civilization. Now, after a long war we once must again fight off SA on their own turf, its almost as if the Devs/GM's said ' Asylon is too far for us to beat them, lets move them closer so that Morek has a fighting chance' and once we beat them on their own turf and rage quit like so many in Astrum did, the devs will say ' look the noble count is dwindling, lets make Dwilight even smaller '

[Gustav Kuriga]

The decision had to be made without taking the political situation of the continent into account. Attempting to take politics into account opens the entire process up into the realm of favoritism and partiality. Do you really want the devs attempting to interpret the political state of the continent, and then deciding which realms to wipe out? I can guarantee to you that if we did, the political state of all of the islands would be quite different, and much more massively disrupted, then actually happened. And I can also guarantee that almost no one would like the outcome. And that almost everyone would be pissed off at the dev team, and no one would agree on what was done.

Politics-based GM intervention has been tried before, in the early stages of the game. The fallout from the player-base was massive, and extremely negative. It simply can't be done.

If your particular realm was harmed in this evolution, I'm sorry. You're not the only one who's realm got destroyed. (And apparently Asylon managed to rally and take Unterstrom? Go Asylon!) But imagine how much worse it would be for you if the devs came forward and said "We destroyed your realm on purpose, because we feel the game is better off without it."

No one said anything about the politics of the island. They said to take the situation of the island into account. Stuff like noble population density per realm should have been looked at much more closely. It's one thing to say "we're going to destroy this realm because of such and such political situation". It's completely different to say "we're going to destroy this realm because their population density is very, very low". If the devs had looked at the population density, they would have seen that they could have gotten the same result while affecting a lot fewer players overall. I mean seriously, I'm quite sure just taking out the land of Morek alone would have been able to do the job. You would have affected 40 players rather than over 100, while still significantly increasing the amount of nobles per region because of the large amount of land that Morek takes up.

[Anaris]

Dwilight was perfect as it was.

No, it really wasn't.

Just because you couldn't see the problems doesn't mean they weren't there.

[Anaris]

This thread is turning into nothing but pointless recriminations about the glaciation and the monster invasion. The decisions have been made, and there is no turning back now. If it continues in this vein any longer, the thread will simply be locked, as will any others that you bring this useless bitterness into.

[sharkattack]

No one said anything about the politics of the island. They said to take the situation of the island into account. Stuff like noble population density per realm should have been looked at much more closely. It's one thing to say "we're going to destroy this realm because of such and such political situation". It's completely different to say "we're going to destroy this realm because their population density is very, very low". If the devs had looked at the population density, they would have seen that they could have gotten the same result while affecting a lot fewer players overall. I mean seriously, I'm quite sure just taking out the land of Morek alone would have been able to do the job. You would have affected 40 players rather than over 100, while still significantly increasing the amount of nobles per region because of the large amount of land that Morek takes up.

Exactly. 

[Anaris]

You were warned.

The topic is now locked.