Number of Players Lost Since Glacier?

[bofeng]

Just as some of us pointed out, the density indicator may not work properly in some cases.

For example in FEI, the infected realms are losing players constantly. Number of characters in Kindara has dropped from ~45 to ~30. In the following week, I believe this number will continue to reduce. Will they move to other regions in FEI? I don't think so. These natural disasters will likely to make some of them to leave this game world.

When they leave, the density will drop again. Will the dev team advance the glacier again? That would be ridiculous.

If the glacier thing is affecting the west side of the continent, then at least the nobles can join their allies. Now the ice age and the military oppression may likely leave these nobles no choice but give up.

[Foxglove]

When they leave, the density will drop again. Will the dev team advance the glacier again? That would be ridiculous.

If they're true to their word, then yes. Anaris said he'd advance the glaciers to a point where the density reached levels he was happy with. Players leaving the island will further reduce the density.

The glacier event has been quite catastrophic for FEI as a playing environment. As LGM Alpha said before he quit the game, the glacier was dropped on the island during the biggest and most interesting event in FEI history while it had a really good island-wide war raging that would probably have run for at least another year (likely much longer). Many players are understandably pissed at the GM event's intervention, and will leave the island (and the game in some cases) as a result or as a protest.

[stuartalexmc]

This is all hot air.

SOMETHING had to be done. Wrongly or rightly this is what was chosen. We should all work to make the game better rather than bicker over actions we cannot change.

[Chenier]

Players quitting can't be summarized to protests, or the like, only. Some players are simply attached to very little, and if that very little happens to be removed, then without necessarily being pissed off against anyone or anything, they could simply not have any motivation left to keep playing. Which, in turn, can demotivate others, even in other realms, that relied on interactions with these people.

Just because action had to be taken doesn't mean that all consequences of the action taken shouldn't be studied and discussed.

[Foxglove]

This is all hot air.

Erm.. No. Character count is falling on FEI as Bofeng gave in his stats.

Players quitting can't be summarized to protests or the like.

It can when that's what they say they're doing.

SOMETHING had to be done. Wrongly or rightly this is what was chosen. We should all work to make the game better rather than bicker over actions we cannot change.

This is also true, but people have a right to say when they don't believe this course of action is helping. It doesn't mean that they're not working to make the game better through their characters. It just means they hold a different opinion to the Devs.

[Jens Namtrah]

So, i guess leadership is now pondering what to do? Fight back? Give up? Start new war? Darka doenst have much of good options left.

Would love to know what leadership is thinking, as well. Perhaps since you feel Darka is probably going to die anyway, you might risk sharing the discussion with others to keep them interested? I don't think I should have to come to the forums to learn all of this.

Since player retention seems to be the ultimate goal here.

[Buffalkill]

A better macro indicator for the dev-level discussion IMO is nobles-to-available regions (NAR), because the dev role is to establish the game board and set the parameters, then let the players configure the pieces naturally in the most advantageous way as the players see it.


I'm not totally convinced that nobles-per-realm (NPR) is always the best indicator when talking about the density problem because it seems like a kind of apples-to-oranges comparison when talking about the macro composition of the game board. It is however a good indicator for studying the infinite realm compositions that might emerge, but that study should happen at the player level.

If you want more nobles per region: it seems very logical to tweak the parameters so the appropriately dense regions function better than those "one-horse" regions that are most common. Then the realm has a strategic judgment to make: e.g. "Do we stack nobles in our city that's about to be attacked, or do we deploy more nobles to the food regions so they'll produce food and gold more efficiently?" The answer will depend on a few variables, and they wouldn't always reach the same conclusion, depending on the season, how much food is in storage, the threat of war, and the state of other friendly regions, etc. So in other words, don't force them into increased density, give them parameters that make a denser region have a comparative advantage.

It you want more war: tweak the parameters to slow down equipment damage, and starving, and speed up travel time. I'm not saying to get rid of those things, just turn down the knob a little bit and make it easier for armies to travel.


I think Chénier is absolutely right that player retention is the more urgent problem and I wish more resources were devoted to it instead of the ambitious roll-outs that seem to be the main focus.

[Penchant]

Buffalkill: And how do propose to increase retention?

The most straight forward thing to me is make war happen more often. What's the two things that most often stand in people's way for starting a war? The huge potential damage and that currently if you are smaller it's much harder to fill the military gap with tactics and strategy. For the huge potential damage, look into changing how looting affects a region would go a long ways. Then for overcoming the gap because you are smaller, would be introducing more things to differentiate armies. Both of those issues are being addressed already.

As well you want to know what helps retention, making sure that new players can always be involved in war at the beginning. How? War Islands, an island in constant warfare. The War Islands is great for the game in many other ways as well, but that is the one relevant to the topic at hand.

[Buffalkill]

Buffalkill: And how do propose to increase retention?

The most straight forward thing to me is make war happen more often. What's the two things that most often stand in people's way for starting a war? The huge potential damage and that currently if you are smaller it's much harder to fill the military gap with tactics and strategy. For the huge potential damage, look into changing how looting affects a region would go a long ways. Then for overcoming the gap because you are smaller, would be introducing more things to differentiate armies. Both of those issues are being addressed already.

As well you want to know what helps retention, making sure that new players can always be involved in war at the beginning. How? War Islands, an island in constant warfare. The War Islands is great for the game in many other ways as well, but that is the one relevant to the topic at hand.

There many possible strategies worth debating to improve retention. Here a few possibility off the top of my head:

   
• Gives newbies more to do; i.e. choose a class, choose a unit type; give them the ability to try all islands without the usual hassle
• Relax the char limits; one of the first rules of marketing (I'm sure) would tell you that the more time people spend playing your game, the more "brand loyalty" you acquire. A lot of people have said they have capacity for another player but they can't. What if Facebook told people in 2007 they could only log on for 15 minutes a day? Then they never would've made that movie about it, and the Winklevoss twins would be ruling the world with an iron fist

[Zakilevo]

Allowing newbies to have up to 3 characters wouldn't be too bad but might want to limit them to create 1 character per continent so they can experience all the continents.

[Dishman]

I wonder how many players would have been pissed at the devs for the freeze if they had known the War Islands might be coming back. It solves most qualms in this thread.

[Chenier]

I wonder how many players would have been pissed at the devs for the freeze if they had known the War Islands might be coming back. It solves most qualms in this thread.

Doubtful.

Also, one has to wonder how creating more land is supposed to increase either activity or density.

Finally, I'd also add that while noble:region and nobles:realm ratios were mentioned, realms:continent ratios also need to be considered, because ultimately, other realms of the continent are the only ones a realm can declare war on.

[Indirik]

Also, one has to wonder how creating more land is supposed to increase either activity or density.

War Islands character slots are planned to be completely separate. The plan is for each account to play one noble on the war island, and this character will not affect any other character slots you may have. IOW - playing a character to the War Island will not reduce the number of active nobles you have to play on other islands.

Finally, I'd also add that while noble:region and nobles:realm ratios were mentioned, realms:continent ratios also need to be considered, because ultimately, other realms of the continent are the only ones a realm can declare war on.

Hopefully, increasing the nobles:region ration, and thus the nobles:realm ratio, will help to increase the pressures to form new realms. If by no other means than allowing realms to spawn new colonies.

[Chenier]

War Islands character slots are planned to be completely separate. The plan is for each account to play one noble on the war island, and this character will not affect any other character slots you may have. IOW - playing a character to the War Island will not reduce the number of active nobles you have to play on other islands.
Hopefully, increasing the nobles:region ration, and thus the nobles:realm ratio, will help to increase the pressures to form new realms. If by no other means than allowing realms to spawn new colonies.

WI - Strictly speaking, yes, the characters there don't count towards the character limit. However, there are a number of people who play less characters than they are entitled to, namely because they feel they don't have time for more. If such people start a character on the WI, then they are likely to remove one from elsewhere.

Density - Increasing the nobles:region ratio has no impact on nobles:realm ratio if no realm dies and all characters remain. The only other ratio I can think of it would affect is regions:realm, which is a ratio if lesser importance. And if it is considered that the current nobles:realm ratio is too low (which I do think it is), then if increasing it only serves to break up the realms to increase realms:continent, then you'll just end up returning to the unsatisfying point of origin as far as nobles:realm goes. Increasing realms:continent, without decreasing nobles:realm, would require merging continents together.

In the end, though, it all just seems like band-aids. All "fixes" are to extend the life of the game a little, but there is no solution in sight for stopping playerbase decay.

[Wolfang]

I'm one of those players that plays less characters than I'm entitled to, but I think I will try a character in WI to see what that island is all about.  :)