Being Able To Play So Many Characters Ruins The Game

[De-Legro]

So shutting down EC is not an option. That sucks.

I think the best option we have is EC/Dwi/SI/Col. And open up Dwi probably and allow people on other continents to move to Dwi without losing any gold or H/P since it is more of a forced migration but of course they will have to choose among their characters which one they wish to play on Dwi.

Logically Dwilight is the largest map, thus the effect of lowered numbers will be more pronounced on it rather then BT.

[Indirik]

Logically Dwilight is the largest map, thus the effect of lowered numbers will be more pronounced on it rather then BT.

Probably. But the available land area on Dwilight can be controlled via the monster spawns.

Also: BT map is broken.

[De-Legro]

Probably. But the available land area on Dwilight can be controlled via the monster spawns.

Also: BT map is broken.

Well yes, as a member of Rio I can well agree with this.

[Constantine]

Good post, Indirik. I agree on everything except your 4-th point.

Also: BT map is broken.

Dwilight map is not ideal either.
BT could be pretty much fixed if you moved southern peninsula up and connected it to the mainland.
Dwilight, on the other hand, being two sausages divided by seas, won't work too well unless it has a really huge number of players.

[Chenier]

Good post, Indirik. I agree on everything except your 4-th point.
Dwilight map is not ideal either.
BT could be pretty much fixed if you moved southern peninsula up and connected it to the mainland.
Dwilight, on the other hand, being two sausages divided by seas, won't work too well unless it has a really huge number of players.

Rio is just part of why the BT map is broken. The blight taking such a high ratio of cities is another. Many realms have poor capital choices, and the opportunities to make new viable realms is limited.

Turning down the character limit would probably just break the game completely.

Over simplistic scenario to illustrate:

Player A, B, and C all have characters in realms X, Y, Z. Player A's favorite realm in X, B's favorite realm is Y, and C's favorite realm is Z. All realms currently have 1 character who is the player's "main", and 2 characters which are mostly dummies that just follow orders. New restriction comes in place and imposes a 1 character per player rule. Player A deletes his characters in X and Y, B in X and Z, and C in Y and Z. Realms X, Y, and Z find themselves with no more dummies to manage the regions and launch military campaigns, players A, B, and C no longer enjoy their favorite realm.

Players like Indirik don't get to hog so many high titles with dummy characters because of shennenigans they do, but because there simply isn't much competition for these titles. Anyone and everyone gets a title nowadays.

As for the solution of removing islands... that strategy has been done again and again. Glaciers moved in to many continents, monsters into Dwi, blight into BT. In which case did removing land correct the problem it was meant to fix? It always seems to just create very short-term gain, quickly compensated by the loss of many targeted players. You know what they say about repeating the same action and expecting different results...

I think that anything decided unilaterally from the top-down is bound to fail. Players who get their realm picked off by dev action are often resentful of them, and often quit. I also think that any half-measure, such as closing some continents but not others, is bound to fail as well. There'll be accusations of favoritism and a lot of jealousy, unless you quite simply get rid of *all* continents to reboot a new one, either with a pre-existing map or a new one. I can't really think of a good candidate map, though, ideally it'd be something like SI, but with more cities. Colonies, maybe? Peninsula on BT/AT is bad, and EC/FEI/Dwi are too linear. Perhaps taking pre-glacier AC and just scrapping the peninsula.

[De-Legro]

I think that anything decided unilaterally from the top-down is bound to fail. Players who get their realm picked off by dev action are often resentful of them, and often quit. I also think that any half-measure, such as closing some continents but not others, is bound to fail as well. There'll be accusations of favoritism and a lot of jealousy, unless you quite simply get rid of *all* continents to reboot a new one, either with a pre-existing map or a new one. I can't really think of a good candidate map, though, ideally it'd be something like SI, but with more cities. Colonies, maybe? Peninsula on BT/AT is bad, and EC/FEI/Dwi are too linear. Perhaps taking pre-glacier AC and just scrapping the peninsula.

Like was said, Tom will not allow EC as the first continent to be scrapped. In the end, the game is at the point where hard decisions need to be made. No one has a "palatable" solution to the density problem, and all proposed solutions are quite frankly going to end up with lost players. Thus the discussion revolves around which will lose less players and pave the way for some real improvements.

Being accused of favouritism is frankly not a consideration. The Dev team wears that accusation even when they are idle.

[Constantine]

Chenier vs. Strawman - 1:0.

Of course decreasing character limit can only happen in conjunction with shutting continents down. And of course it has to be a complete reboot with improved, better thought out map(s). And that's pretty clear from previous posts.

 

I think that anything decided unilaterally from the top-down is bound to fail.

That is in fact a highly fallacious statement.

Furthermore, if previous efforts to rectify the situation were ineffective, it doesn't mean no further attempts should be made because playerbase keeps steadily shrinking down and status quo is clearly not a solution.

[Audaci]

Why not just find a way to increase players? Instead of all the heartache over reduced player, reducing characters, shrinking continents, etc. shouldn't we focus on growing the player-base?

Obviously that's easier said than done, but if the community applied the same amount of effort to recruiting players or marketing as it does to arguing over how to accommodate a reduced headcount we might grow the game.

I do need to admit that I've been back for 2 days after an 8 year hiatus and know nothing about what's going on...

[De-Legro]

Chenier vs. Strawman - 1:0.

Of course decreasing character limit can only happen in conjunction with shutting continents down. And of course it has to be a complete reboot with improved, better thought out map(s). And that's pretty clear from previous posts.

 That is in fact a highly fallacious statement.

Furthermore, if previous efforts to rectify the situation were ineffective, it doesn't mean no further attempts should be made because playerbase keeps steadily shrinking down and status quo is clearly not a solution.

We are incredibly unlikely to be creating new maps.

[Constantine]

Why not just find a way to increase players?

As a member of several niche old online communities that are struggling to stabilize my experience shows that growth is only possible when something new and big is happening.
To offer an anecdotal example, there was this one pretty good NWN server that just kept losing players to reasons which mostly were beyond administration's control. Several recruiting campaigns were launched and they were not very successful.
What actually did it was server reboot along with character wipe, brand new maps, quests and items because with old niche games its more effective to bring back old players/players from other similar existing communities than recruit brand new ones.

We are incredibly unlikely to be creating new maps.

Why?

[Zakilevo]

Because we don't have the man power to do it...

[Indirik]

A more likely approach would be some way to reboot an existing map, using some kind of catastrophe as the mechanism. Something that temporarily shut down several islands, then reopened one as a blank slate.

[Zakilevo]

Wouldn't a slight modification be doable? Like adding some regions to make EC more round?

Or at least balance resources over the map?

[The Red Foliot]

The existing maps, poorly balanced to begin with, are now played out. EC hasn't been interesting since 2006.

The only option I think is to shut down everything and begin anew with a single, good map. The excitement of colonizing a new island would mitigate player loss and boost activity.

Half measures won't work and no one not already on EC will want to migrate there.

[Fleugs]

The existing maps, poorly balanced to begin with, are now played out. EC hasn't been interesting since 2006.

The only option I think is to shut down everything and begin anew with a single, good map. The excitement of colonizing a new island would mitigate player loss and boost activity.

Half measures won't work and no one not already on EC will want to migrate there.

+1

Full reboot. I'm confident there's a hardcore base of players that will stick in BM no matter what (me includes) that would keep going. With even as little as fifty players there could be a thriving island. A thriving island which would entice new or returning players to stay, because now they won't have a 80% chance of joining a realm that turns out to be dead on the inside. Perhaps BM is meant for a cyclical life. When it dies, it rises from its ashes anew! Ardet nec consumitur!