Viceren

Every new player would be relegated to the non-new server, and won't get to experience the same game the rest of us will be playing. This means they'll feel immediately that they have to pay upfront to actually 'play' Wurm, and thus, will feel cheated when they were originally promised a free experience. This just reminds me of all of those awful gacha games out there, and it leaves an extremely bad taste in my mouth just thinking about it. Veteran players will still bemoan the existence of a new server. Even one with a price tag on it, will effectively cause the exact same problems that I've spoken of before. Older servers will not have the same value as they did before, the population will still be funneled directly into a single server (The newest one), and this becomes a quitting point for players who can't get the premium locations on the newer server and suddenly find their old deeds to be valueless in comparison to how they saw it before. You can't offer players this kind of quitting point when the sunk cost fallacy is such a driving factor for people's long term deed upkeep goals. I understand people want to make Wurm succeed, but they need to focus on monetizing other desires. Namely the desire to stand out, or be different, especially in what they can build.

Expect to see a lot of people saying "It's not working for me" Almost all of Canada, and the majority of the United States still uses IPv4.

Hope it helps.

Reasons why people choose PvE in Wurm over PvP: People like to create things for themselves. They do not like being forced to create things for others. People can securely own their own things. They do not have to pool their resources, nor is there active risk of their land being taken from them by deed drainers outside of PvP. People can ply their trades, and actively make money off of it. There is no intrinsic guilt associated with selling your wares outside of PvP. People can find belonging and community through alliances, without the hierarchical structure that comes with PvP's communities. People like to gather things for themselves. They do not like being forced to gather things for others. People dislike being 'given' things by people who hoard what the community itself creates. Even if they created it themselves, they still feel like they're being supported, and not self-sufficient. People like to create beautiful things. People dislike having to create spartan or brutalist structures out of defensive necessity. People like to create grandiose things. People dislike having to limit the size and scope of their creations due to defensive necessity. People hate the feeling of loss. Having things directly taken from you, either through the community hierarchy, or through the inevitable result of death out in the field, does not feel good to most people. People hate the feeling of being controlled. Having to change how you play specifically to avoid the inevitable result of death, or to appease the dictates of the community hierarchy, does not feel good to most people. It's only natural people will pick PvE over PvP. I would argue that the collectivistic hierarchical structure of PvP is one of the greatest weaknesses towards it's ability to recruit, especially when compared to the clear individualistic capitalist structure of PvE. Then there is the inevitable outcome for all FFA PvP, regardless of game, structure, or design: One side wins. The other side quits. The winners quit out of boredom, because there is no one left to fight. This thread pretty much exists because you guys are coming into the tailspin of population decline. I'm willing to bet one side won. Probably JK again since it's always been the heavy favorite of Rolf's. Now there's no MR or HoTS left to fight, right? Welcome to victory, enjoy the peace.

Short term alt growth due to people actively land rushing. Followed by long term population reduction. People who didn't get the shiny new land located close to the starter town often get envious and leave. Their previous deeds on the previous server no longer have the same prestige or perceived value, so they lose the reason to stick around. Watching Indy go from 1000 people to 120 was mortifying. Seeing my alliance dry up over the span of two weeks was mortifying. Going from constant chatter in freedom, to a ghost town - was mortifying. Xanadu was a mistake, and new servers have constantly been a bandaid over a stab wound. Deeds aren't even the main source of revenue anymore due to the lack of merchant contracts, so it won't even have the same financial impact as it used to when even tiny deeds were 10s upfront. If they're desperate for ideas on how to monetize the game without pissing off a sizeable chunk of the fanbase, there are better methods and routes to go.

Agreed. Let's not make the same bad decisions, shall we? I was on hiatus when the Steam release came out. If I was around at the time, I would've been against the creation of new servers.

I saw what you did there. I'm more of a Lump than a Gem.

If Cadence feels overcrowded. Move to the open forests, steppe, desert and mountains away from the heartlands. If you're having a hard time finding unpopulated areas, I can point some out for you off of the top of my head: N9, P11, R13, J9, F13, E13, F14, E21, F22, M22, M23, M24, N24, P24. The truth of the matter is. New servers afford people new opportunities to own prime real estate in a server destined to become overpopulated by rights of being new, that's why the land rush exists in the first place. The very people accusing others of conservatism only for the sake of personal prestige or profits, are ignoring their own prestige and profit motives for advocating for new servers, as the 'adventure' aspect could easily be replicated by moving to empty and barely touched servers like Xanadu and Harmony and walking out of the heartlands. We have too much room (Even on Cadence), and too many empty servers. We don't need new servers. We need proper incentives for people to play on servers other than Cadence, and probably more starting points to create new heartlands to encourage development of new areas in existing servers.

Rather than new servers. I think there needs to be incentives to play on servers that aren't just Cadence. All a new server will do, is kill Cadence's primacy as the top dog server, and make the new server the overcrowded one, while every other server languishes. Maybe it's time to take a page out of Dark Age of Camelot's playbook. Add +XP% bonuses to people living on less populated servers. Make initial deeding cheaper. Make it easier to find treasure chests. Anything to lure people away from Cadence. All this discussion is doing is showing me that people do not learn from Wurm's past mistakes. People forget how populated Wurm Online was before the catastrophe of Xanadu.

If this were 2014, and I were asked to answer this question on Xanadu's Freedom Chat, there'd be a 4 minute chat lag delay - followed by multiple server outages.

They asked this question back in January of 2014. The answer was Xanadu. This question was stupid, and the answer was worse. Xanadu was Wurm's greatest mistake.

Hey Red. Deed Changes: Replace Line 462 with: Karak Kadrin 2839 1888 New Deed: Karak Azgal 2795 1888

Thanks to everybody who came out! Enjoy the sleep bonus!

It's either today - or Friday. I asked around and a few people in chat said they'd prefer it done today than have to wait till Friday. (There is a game called Millenia coming out tomorrow, and I'm told a lot of Wurmians are going to be missing next weekend due to this game. Myself likely included. >=P) I'm making sure to give extra care to get as many benediction priests in as possible to make up for the short notice. Sorry again for springing it up, the cast literally just came up today. (I checked 5 hours ago and it wasn't up, but Rite of Spring showed up on the cast list at around 7, and I checked again and it was up!) Sorry to all the Aussies and NZ'ers out there. I know you guys are the ones getting screwed the most by this announcement.

Reserved.