Old Worlds

Can they do either of those things? Yes, they probably can.
More importantly, will they?

New content/features such as? It's unlikely they'll develop new content just for old worlds. Some worlds only have 30-100 accounts valid in the ranking now. They're not going to develop for such a small user base, especially as many don't spend on the old worlds and only visit sporadically.

If there are enough players on a world to have 'enemy alliances' that are active then the world isn't totally dead.

Ending a world: What about the few players still active with resources in storage? Some of which may have been bought, should they lose that?

Transferring resources between worlds would be nice though, then killing a world becomes less of a resources issue.

There is almost nobody spending money in old worlds. Active players in enemy alliances consist of 1-2 players with subs of all remaining "active" accounts in their alliance.

The point is that having 10 year old worlds where nothing interesting is happening is tiresome to maintain. Especially since killing the same 1-2 players for the 20,000th time is ridiculous. Player accounts with bases destroyed tens of thousands of times continue to respawn with no real penalty, and that is ridiculous.

And what happens if a world has nobody active? Some of the worlds are well on their way to having all players gone. Point is there must be an end point to this game, and not an "end point" where you quit the game.

"TBI1001;c-2211622" wrote:
And what happens if a world has nobody active? Some of the worlds are well on their way to having all players gone. Point is there must be an end point to this game, and not an "end point" where you quit the game.

I agree an end point to a world should exist. However, even Vet worlds, where an endpoint naturally exists and was originally announced as being at the end of the season don't end.

Endpoints to a world need to be set at the start of the world, either some arbitrary date or number of fortress kills. Of course, those that wish to prolong a world for whatever reason would simple not kill the fortress for the (10th time) and control the centre forever, just as now.

Even restricting the number of badges to 5 or 10 wouldn't stop players sticking around. The PTE is an example of that. You only get a badge for your first kill but the world changes frequently and the challenge is greater, but players generally remain on the PTE.

Transferring resources would encourage players to move worlds, in my opinion.

Easiest way to stop players from sticking around is to end the world. Set a date a month or so from the announcement, after which all player bases will be converted to a fixed exhibit detailing the strength of the bases and the stats of the account, like a museum. No more farming or anything after that. Players can look at their bases and world stats as accomplishment, and then move on to another world to start over again.

Setting the time for 10 years is doable. In fact, after 5 years, a world can end, since activity after 5 years is relatively low.

Besides solving the end-point issue, this will help to resolve the fact that alliance members start to create long-term sub to hold POIs for their alliance. Ending the world means no need to have 1 or 2 players having substitution for 10 or more POI holders.

Decades old servers should be shut down and not held up by a few people playing farmville.
I know of one server where there is just one guy still playing and that is just plain stupid, waste of compute resources if you ask me.

I would say give servers a finite lifetime of 4 years and give the farmville players a specific server where they can spend the next 100 years building level 65 things by themselves.

i think only people who know what they are even talking about should comment on the old worlds. shut this topic down with these noobs talkin about something they dont know.

The developers really need to look into it. "chadthurston" is a troll who posts "delete" in so many posts it is not even funny

He doesn't actually post "delete" - he posts something, sometimes quite a long post and then deletes it.

If you want something from someone who is in an old world, here is my comment:

"I'm about to get to my base 31 in an ancient world and I'm glad I made it this far after so many years invested in the game."

Delete it? Don't even think about raising it.