EA Forums - Banner

New worlds?

no longer thinking of publishing new worlds? ... Publish worlds without morals, people no longer like servers with a lot of morals.

Replies

  • gamerdruid
    3572 posts Moderator
    August is a time when vacations hit the workplace (or home working work place now) and so development is slowed. Some people do like morale worlds, I'm not so sure they have a lot of morals on how they play them :smile:

    A vet server - or a Firestorm world must be in line for the next world, whenever it may be.
    I am not an employee of EA/Envision. The views expressed are my own!
  • When do you think would the next world be released? Do you think a world would come out this August or would it be on September?
  • gamerdruid
    3572 posts Moderator
    Guess (and last time I was wrong) is late September. The latest worlds aren't nearly full. But, if it is a Vet world then could be anytime.
    I am not an employee of EA/Envision. The views expressed are my own!
  • gamerdruid wrote: »
    Guess (and last time I was wrong) is late September. The latest worlds aren't nearly full.

    The reason behind this might be that there are fewer players playing in each world... do you have any way to count the number of active players on a world that have played in the last 3 days. This has to be regardless of alliance, and the data must be totaled between the recent 20 worlds or something close. My bet is that there may be only 5,000 players left when before, we could of had around 20,000 or 30,000 players.
  • There are probably about 2000 constantly playing players. After the new patch, there will be much less of them.
  • I'm sorry to say but this is a dying game, no more "full" worlds unless it's a vet world and even those may not be full.
  • gamerdruid
    3572 posts Moderator
    I'm sure there are a lot of metrics that they use to determine if a new world should be started. I know they can determine if a player has logged in during the 'last X days' or 'last X weeks' as this is used to determine if a player gets the compensation when an issue happens that triggers them giving compensation. It's also used on the PTE to determine if you get the crates of cp and rt each week.

    How many active players there are will, in part determine how you define active. Also, on older worlds (very old ones) the level of activity is often low because of the size of the bases they're working with as well as the number. Newer worlds always die off once the 'winner of the first fortress' is a foregone conclusion. It is wars that maintain interest and users, in my experience. The number of accounts does not equal the number of players and I don't know if they have a way to successfully determine the difference.

    Every time a change happens, either a patch change or funding price change, there are always a bunch of players that decide that the game has changed too much or become too expensive. New players however come along and stay for a while. When the 'powers that be' (EA) determine the cost of maintaining the game is more than the income then the game will be either sold on or scrapped. They've not done that for many games so far as far as I know!
    I am not an employee of EA/Envision. The views expressed are my own!
  • gamerdruid wrote: »
    It is wars that maintain interest and users, in my experience.!

    Exactly - It is that plus the recent pricing issues that are expediting putting the nails in the coffin - first they made war 'unprofitable' in the game through the various PVP nerfs they applied throughout the years, so those who played mainly for the war aspect were spending a good amount on funds - now with the funds issue on top of that, PVP is unsustainable unless you have deep pockets - hence the increased amount of people deciding to quit.

    Somewhere along the line Devs seemed to forget this was a WAR game :(

  • 123wellz wrote: »
    Exactly - It is that plus the recent pricing issues that are expediting putting the nails in the coffin - first they made war 'unprofitable' in the game through the various PVP nerfs they applied throughout the years, so those who played mainly for the war aspect were spending a good amount on funds - now with the funds issue on top of that, PVP is unsustainable unless you have deep pockets - hence the increased amount of people deciding to quit.

    Somewhere along the line Devs seemed to forget this was a WAR game :(

    True, it seems that EA is making changes that majority of the players don't like. They should make it so that PvP is rewarding and the prices of TA fund's ain't too high. If you bring it too high, users might not want to spend money on the game and reroute their funds elsewhere that EA hasn't touched. The PvP is an issue cause of account eating and muti-accounts. Controlling 2 or 3 accounts is ok, but using 5 or 6 is considered abusing the TOS... we should punish accounts that do these. Maybe set a filter that prevents more than 3 accounts from being accessed by the same IP address or something, basically an identifier to each individual computer that can't easily be changed by any cheating players.
  • Very sad ... add me to the list of those leaving a game that used to be fun.
Sign In or Register to comment.

Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!