Number of Players Lost Since Glacier?

[Zakilevo]

You know Anaris, you're right. And when you're right you're right. And you? You're always right.

Think this is where we say it is pointless to discuss anymore. Instead of talking about the topic of the thread, now we are back at yelling at each other how the other isn't listening to one another.

[vonGenf]

So come back in 14-15 months, and we will re-evaluate it then.

Isn't that an overly long time? I get that we're not expecting a turnaround while the event is taking place, but surely the point is the get the game in a better state where it will be more fun, inducing better word-of-mouth and player retention within, say, a few weeks, 3 months top? If in 6 months the player count is not up, or at least is not trending upwards, then certainly it's not the right solution that was applied.

[Velax]

I don't believe this solution was designed to increase the player count. It was designed to alleviate the problems that a declining player count causes, such as very few nobles per region/realm. And, as long as the number of players leaving doesn't exceed some ratio to the number of regions removed, it will do that.

I was lucky enough to escape any of my characters being significantly affected by the glacier. I did have my main realm badly affected by starvation caused by another GM event, though - the food/gold production rebalance. We lost eight regions and had the population of many of our cities reduced to the point where it will take months to fully recover. So I do feel at least partially qualified to say this:

You are more than welcome to express your dissatisfaction at events. Do not, however, take your anger out at Devs who are only trying to make this a better game for everyone. Most definitely do not accuse them of bias or of targeting realms their characters are in conflict with. Not only is it insulting, it simply doesn't stand up to scrutiny. One Dev lost a number of regions that formerly belonged to the realm he is ruler of, and that were fully intended to be reclaimed by that realm. Another lost the entire realm he is ruler of - that hardly seems like something he would do if he was trying to deliberately target certain realms.

[Eirikr]

I would have to say that some of your own logic is faulty.

Then please point it out with a clear explanation as to why. Don't just post random insulting one-liners.

I wasn't really insulted; I don't pretend my logic foolproof. For example, I'm quite aware that those three questions can be answered in any number of ways, skewing the results. I'm also aware that there's even some confirmation bias by asking the "Why not?" only rather than "Why?" as well.

I've provided proof backing up my own opinions time and again, to have it ignored time and again for the same old excuses. If they're not going to extend that respect to me, I'm not going to for them.

I've yet to participate in this discussion and you claim I am not willing to extend that respect to you? Tell me why I should bother looking for your other posts or respecting you now?

I don't believe this solution was designed to increase the player count. It was designed to alleviate the problems that a declining player count causes, such as very few nobles per region/realm. And, as long as the number of players leaving doesn't exceed some ratio to the number of regions removed, it will do that.

I was lucky enough to escape any of my characters being significantly affected by the glacier. I did have my main realm badly affected by starvation caused by another GM event, though - the food/gold production rebalance. We lost eight regions and had the population of many of our cities reduced to the point where it will take months to fully recover. So I do feel at least partially qualified to say this:

You are more than welcome to express your dissatisfaction at events. Do not, however, take your anger out at Devs who are only trying to make this a better game for everyone. Most definitely do not accuse them of bias or of targeting realms their characters are in conflict with. Not only is it insulting, it simply doesn't stand up to scrutiny. One Dev lost a number of regions that formerly belonged to the realm he is ruler of, and that were fully intended to be reclaimed by that realm. Another lost the entire realm he is ruler of - that hardly seems like something he would do if he was trying to deliberately target certain realms.

Thank you. In fact, I believe the stated reason was to increase character density which happens by reducing habitable land or gaining players. This solution definitely does one of those things... but it's hard to tell if player departure is large enough to counter the intended effect or if the end result causes an influx of new players. Cite stats of your specific realm and the accounts deleted all you want, but it means very little until you have the total picture.

[Penchant]

No, I've refuted your arguments with evidence that supports my own. There's a slight difference that you apparently are being too thick to realize.

Again, you're assuming that this is a failure, and that the data showing people leaving "proves" this, when all it proves is that what is happening is exactly what we predicted so far.

If, in six months, the data shows that we're still bleeding players at a rate higher than before the Ice Age began, then you can come to me and say that it failed, and I'll agree with you. For now, it's just way, way too soon to tell. So be patient.

I have looked through the last 45 posts by you, which covers the last month of your posts on the forum. Not one of them refuted the fact that the dev team is fully aware there would be people quitting when it happened but it will be best for the game. Since you have already refuted the argument, feel free to quote one of your past posts.

[Alpha]

I plan on pausing my characters in the next week or so. The glacier event is a major reason behind this. I don't think any malice was involved in the glacier position decisions, but the effect that it is having is certainly unpleasant for many, myself included. I understand why it is being done, as player density has been decreasing for a very long time.

I've had a lot of fun with BM over the years, and maybe I will again in the future.

[OFaolain]

Related question:

What happens if a character is paused in the glacier's path, and is then later unpaused?

[Anaris]

Related question:

What happens if a character is paused in the glacier's path, and is then later unpaused?

All characters should be automatically moved to a safe region each time the glacier advances.

Once the glacier settles, I will run a check on all the frozen regions and make sure there's no one trapped back there.

[Zakilevo]

No human Popsicle? :(

[Stabbity]

All characters should be automatically moved to a safe region each time the glacier advances.

Once the glacier settles, I will run a check on all the frozen regions and make sure there's no one trapped back there.

Which is sad, one of my characters I rp'd as having gone insane due to the ice wanted to offer himself up to the glaciers and be frozen under them. He was just pushed back. So I Rp'd the glacier bonking him on the head and curing his madness.

[Eirikr]

Which is sad, one of my characters I rp'd as having gone insane due to the ice wanted to offer himself up to the glaciers and be frozen under them. He was just pushed back. So I Rp'd the glacier bonking him on the head and curing his madness.

+10

[DasYasha]

The end result of this whole ordeal is that it was a very very bad show. Instead of allowing us to fight and show that we can hold our place, you had to force an artificial destruction of land that was invetable and could not be avoided. In my opinion, a fair challenge is the thing to go and allow players to determine their fate (bad outcome is good as long as it is your own fault).

Since the developers insist that this is the way to do it, there ain't much options left for me. For my part, I will start getting rid of my characters and I will not promote this game any longer. Game over so to say.

[Anaris]

The end result of this whole ordeal is that it was a very very bad show. Instead of allowing us to fight and show that we can hold our place, you had to force an artificial destruction of land that was invetable and could not be avoided. In my opinion, a fair challenge is the thing to go and allow players to determine their fate (bad outcome is good as long as it is your own fault).

You seem to have missed the point.

The entire purpose of this exercise was to reduce the number of regions available, so as to increase the player density in the remaining regions.

If we gave the players a fight they had any realistic hope of winning, that simply wouldn't have happened.

Remember, the alternative to this was never "do nothing." It was closing an entire continent, without any hope of fighting or changing it.

[Buffalkill]

You seem to have missed the point.

The entire purpose of this exercise was to reduce the number of regions available, so as to increase the player density in the remaining regions.

If we gave the players a fight they had any realistic hope of winning, that simply wouldn't have happened.

Remember, the alternative to this was never "do nothing." It was closing an entire continent, without any hope of fighting or changing it.

I think "it was either this or nothing" is a false dichotomy. A simpler way to increase player density might have been to set minimum number of nobles to keep a region, let's say 3. Any region with fewer than 3 nobles goes rogue. As a result, you achieve smaller, more compact realms, but instead of corralling everyone like farm animals who are pissed off because they have no choice in the matter, you would empower them to collaborate and strategise to decide which regions they want to keep and which ones will go rogue. Things like fealty, honour & teamwork become more important, and peer recruitment would go up because it directly supports expansion. Best of all, it would be player-driven and not sky-hook-driven.

[Ketchum]

This topic interests me greatly as a player and I have browsed through every post.

In my humble opinion.

It is hard to put an estimate on number of players lost since glacier. Or even gain number of players. Only when the glacier stops(which we call the Ending Point), can we truly see the results. If we wish to see the results, we not only take into account the number of players lost/gained, we also have to take a look at the other direct or indirect results. Let me give you all an example.

Realms affected by ice -> Migrate to other lands peacefully -> Peaceful new colony -> More messages flowing -> More players talking -> More fun for all characters

Realms affected by ice -> Migrate to other lands not peacefully -> War for all realms -> More messages flowing -> More players talking -> More fun for all characters

Realms affected by ice -> Do not want migrate to other lands -> Characters fight to the end -> Establish good storyline for their characters

There could be more indirect or direct benefits, the above benefits are what I could think of at the moment.