Chaos suggestion

[Kamikazifly 70]

Delcaring a deed as a PVP deed isn't going to work at all, because a secondary deed can easily be made where you can store all your stuff without worrying about if its going to get looted.

true...  :-\  BUT Being able to use a boat to retreat safely home to a PvE server is the same thing.

On the neutral deed idea: the players would have to be in the warring alliance to participate. And that would make them want to work on their stuff at that deed. Make it so they cant get sleep bonus at a neutral deed. And that they cant pick up stuff at the neutral deed. Make it tedious and bothersome to have a safe house.

But what about the loot no loot idea.

[Makarus 458]

In a way, I like the option to allow loot/no loot. You can join a  fight, but not force someone outta their gear no matter how badly you tip the scales..

I do see a lot less circulation of drake/scale. ...I wouldn't mind killing a man in a scale suit and winning it. That's good incentive.

So is defending home, expanding territory, and settling a dispute.

I like this deed ready for war thing. I think if that was added, it would need to be expanded upon, to solve problems like Rudie mentioned.

Gives a guy a chance to build up the fort before worrying about being assaulted... which is nice.

+1 kill anyone. No reputation hit. But I dont want anyone able to destroy my deed.

Thing is... in war, in pvp, combat in general... there is damage. If you don't want to lose it, don't put it on the line. An option, on the line or not... IS a valid middle ground between freedom/wild.

_{But let us maybe pave a 6 lane highway (gotta move troops) through neutral deeds}

[Kamikazifly 70]

In the US we believe that having our money stashed in Switzerland banks will keep it safe, when we are at war. Because we view their country as always a neutral country.

[Kamikazifly 70]

In a way, I like the option to allow loot/no loot. You can join a  fight, but not force someone outta their gear no matter how badly you tip the scales..

I do see a lot less circulation of drake/scale. ...I wouldn't mind killing a man in a scale suit and winning it. That's good incentive.

So is defending home, expanding territory, and settling a dispute.

I like this deed ready for war thing. I think if that was added, it would need to be expanded upon, to solve problems like Rudie mentioned.

Gives a guy a chance to build up the fort before worrying about being assaulted... which is nice.

+1 kill anyone. No reputation hit. But I dont want anyone able to destroy my deed.

Thing is... in war, in pvp, combat in general... there is damage. If you don't want to lose it, don't put it on the line. An option, on the line or not... IS a valid middle ground between freedom/wild.

_{But let us maybe pave a 6 lane highway (gotta move troops) through neutral deeds}

fyi. My Chaos deed looks nice, and has no structures.

Because I don't feel the need to be raided.

There is no way I could make my beautiful oasis fortified enough to fend off even 5 players. I dont mind if they ran onto my deed and... stood there wondering why it looks so pretty and has only crude tools lying on the ground.

Argh, lets chop his trees down, kill that scorpion... and pack his grass in. That will show him.

Also, I love the wild map. Its beautiful.

Maybe make nuetral deeds try not to be in the way... or they have to have a 6 lane high way. To easily spot highway men, and Stage coach robbers... in neutral deeds.

[Nazaryx 0]

In a way, I like the option to allow loot/no loot. You can join a  fight, but not force someone outta their gear no matter how badly you tip the scales..

I do see a lot less circulation of drake/scale. ...I wouldn't mind killing a man in a scale suit and winning it. That's good incentive.

So is defending home, expanding territory, and settling a dispute.

I like this deed ready for war thing. I think if that was added, it would need to be expanded upon, to solve problems like Rudie mentioned.

Gives a guy a chance to build up the fort before worrying about being assaulted... which is nice.

+1 kill anyone. No reputation hit. But I dont want anyone able to destroy my deed.

Thing is... in war, in pvp, combat in general... there is damage. If you don't want to lose it, don't put it on the line. An option, on the line or not... IS a valid middle ground between freedom/wild.

This is exactly my goal, giving players the ability to risk what they are comfortable risking, for a chance at receiving what they risk. I risk my equipment for a chance at killing you and getting your equipment. If you want to risk your property for a chance to destroy your opponents, then your opponent has to risk their property for a chance to destroy your property as well. Each player is comfortable with a different amount of risk, but the more you risk, the more you stand to gain, and nobody is forced to risk more than they want. Obviously this won't please everyone, but it can please a lot of people, and attract players who are interested in taking part.

A side effect that I just thought about, with a system like this, players would have to have a village on the server in order to declare war on another village, so for players to take part, they'd either need to place their own deed, or join an existing deed. Basically, cross-server raiding would be much harder, since the raiders would have to either place or be part of an existing deed on Chaos, and even then they'd be restricted to raiding whoever they are at war with.

One thought that remains is, for non-premium players without a village, living in the wilderness, do we make the rest of the server PvE with PvP wars, or make the whole server PvP with deeds protected unless they are at war? My thought is making the server PvE with the PvP restricted to wars would allow new players without a village the ability to go about business as usual without having to be paranoid about being ganked.

My original thought behind giving mayors the ability to declare a deed as a pvp area is to satisfy people that want the risk of being attacked, and having the ability to defend themselves. Or just kill random people that happen to wander onto their property. "They break your stuff, you break their skull" sort of thing.

Anyways, I'm glad there's actually discussion and ideas being shared, rather than the broken record of "I want wild back", and "I miss wild", or everyone's favorite, "+1".

[Kamikazifly 70]

In a way, I like the option to allow loot/no loot. You can join a  fight, but not force someone outta their gear no matter how badly you tip the scales..

I do see a lot less circulation of drake/scale. ...I wouldn't mind killing a man in a scale suit and winning it. That's good incentive.

So is defending home, expanding territory, and settling a dispute.

I like this deed ready for war thing. I think if that was added, it would need to be expanded upon, to solve problems like Rudie mentioned.

Gives a guy a chance to build up the fort before worrying about being assaulted... which is nice.

+1 kill anyone. No reputation hit. But I dont want anyone able to destroy my deed.

Thing is... in war, in pvp, combat in general... there is damage. If you don't want to lose it, don't put it on the line. An option, on the line or not... IS a valid middle ground between freedom/wild.

This is exactly my goal, giving players the ability to risk what they are comfortable risking, for a chance at receiving what they risk. I risk my equipment for a chance at killing you and getting your equipment. If you want to risk your property for a chance to destroy your opponents, then your opponent has to risk their property for a chance to destroy your property as well. Each player is comfortable with a different amount of risk, but the more you risk, the more you stand to gain, and nobody is forced to risk more than they want. Obviously this won't please everyone, but it can please a lot of people, and attract players who are interested in taking part.

A side effect that I just thought about, with a system like this, players would have to have a village on the server in order to declare war on another village, so for players to take part, they'd either need to place their own deed, or join an existing deed. Basically, cross-server raiding would be much harder, since the raiders would have to either place or be part of an existing deed on Chaos, and even then they'd be restricted to raiding whoever they are at war with.

One thought that remains is, for non-premium players without a village, living in the wilderness, do we make the rest of the server PvE with PvP wars, or make the whole server PvP with deeds protected unless they are at war? My thought is making the server PvE with the PvP restricted to wars would allow new players without a village the ability to go about business as usual without having to be paranoid about being ganked.

My original thought behind giving mayors the ability to declare a deed as a pvp area is to satisfy people that want the risk of being attacked, and having the ability to defend themselves. Or just kill random people that happen to wander onto their property. "They break your stuff, you break their skull" sort of thing.

Anyways, I'm glad there's actually discussion and ideas being shared, rather than the broken record of "I want wild back", and "I miss wild", or everyone's favorite, "+1".

+1

Someone had suggested shadow guards to me:

Each 'Premium' player has a shadow of their former self while they are logged off, where they logged off.

The shadow guard can not move out of a 25 tile radius. (like tower guards)

The shadow guard will not spawn if the player logs off within 100 tiles of an enemy deed.

A shadow guard will respawn after 2 hours.

Someone else has to arm the shadow guard after the player has logged off, just like a tower guard. And they drop that loot, as a tower guard would.

Remove spirit templars.

This would show a deed's true power when they are sleeping and couldn't defend themselves.

(at work, away for the weekend, on vacation, etc.)

And costs more than spirit templars.

If they exit the server to Deli, there is no shadow guard. This would ensure they stayed to guard something.

Having a shadow guard would give warring alliances a reason to recruit as many active players as they could get.

[Red 81]

Its so counter productive to add limitations and limiting mechanics to a SANDBOX game. That takes place in an OPEN malleable world.\

You aren't going to make  a change with limitations you suggest that is going to attract new players.  And you will always see the population flux on Epic that you see.  Note a reason Wild's pop was so dull leading up to epic was that people were WAITING for epic.  Why play when they were going to start over anyway?

We don't need a server with more limitations, if you want limitations try a different game.  There are enough limitations on Freedom for PvE and crafting to be functional.  And there are enough limitations on Epic to sway people towards PvP.

We DON'T need another server with limitations.  We need a server with no limitations as wurm used to be and was built to be.  That's the WHOLE point of wurm.

I don't understand this mindset of adding more and more rules and mechanics and limits to a sandbox.  This is a niche game, we all know that, so why destroy it?

Rolf should be spending his coding time on bug fixes and new (useful) additions to the game.  Not writing some silly limiting code for a silly new server idea.

The only good way for wurm to attract new players has always been a fresh start, period.  Yes after a while the population will plateau and probably taper off, but thats just the name of the game when it comes to an MMO sandbox game such as wurm.

Stop with the limitations and do something with wild/chaos or save your money and close it to focus on the rest of the game.  Unless we're all okay with stagnation.

And really, whats with these weird ideas?  Did you people ever play on wild during gold1 or early gold2? Or play beta?  I'm not sure where all of these anti-wurm ideas are spawning from.  Not a fan of destroying the Core gameplay.

[Nomadikhan 2,196]

Was 43 online erlier, so chaos aint that dead.

Mhmm, furthermore and not that anyone cares, but if chaos gets a map reset.. I will quit.

[Ecrir 887]

Being able to toggle loot/no loot and having the choice of being a warring deed or not both sound like great ideas. Being able to toggle loot/no loot will allow people to try out pvp even if they don't want to lose their stuff and players who don't want to see their deeds destroyed simply don't make them warring deeds (or simply don't join a warring alliance). And yeah, as pointed out the warring deed idea needs some more work.

The poll here (http://wurmonline.com/forum/index.php?topic=71839.0) shows that 33 out of 108 people hate to lose their stuff and 32 out of 108 hate to lose their inventory. So that's pretty much a third of all voters. "I want to loot who I kill" on the other hand only got 17 votes!

So according to that poll there clearly seems to be a demand of some sort for this loot/no loot toggle and adding it could greatly increase the amount of players who'd want to pvp on Chaos/Wild. It would make sense to add, even if it's just a temporary test, since according to the poll the amount of players who hate to lose their stuff exceeds the amount of players who want to loot their opponents, almost by a factor of 2.

[Nazaryx 0]

@ Red Hate to break it to you, but Wurm was built by Rolf to be what it IS, not what it WAS. Wurm is constantly evolving and moving forward, not backwards. All of these ideas are each individuals take on how to make something better. If Wurm was perfect back in beta, gold1, or gold2, it never would have changed. But it did change, ergo it wasn't perfect. What you want is to throw the last 5 years of Wurm's evolution away.

You've already made it clear you'd rather burn the house down than try to make it better. We've made it clear that we want to keep Chaos going for as long as possible, so players who have lived there for years aren't forced to start over somewhere else, and to make it as fun as possible for as many people as possible, not just a handful. There's nothing "anti-wurm" about that.

Kind of makes me feel sad.

Edit: If I had 5 years of time spent just thrown away, I would probably quit too. Heck, I wouldn't be very happy if I had even a couple months of my time just thrown away or taken from me. The Chaos map has a rich history, it would be a shame for it to be reset and have all that history thrown away.

[Red 81]

Being able to toggle loot/no loot and having the choice of being a warring deed or not both sound like great ideas. Being able to toggle loot/no loot will allow people to try out pvp even if they don't want to lose their stuff and players who don't want to see their deeds destroyed simply don't make them warring deeds (or simply don't join a warring alliance). And yeah, as pointed out the warring deed idea needs some more work.

The poll here (http://wurmonline.com/forum/index.php?topic=71839.0) shows that 33 out of 108 people hate to lose their stuff and 32 out of 108 hate to lose their inventory. So that's pretty much a third of all voters. "I want to loot who I kill" on the other hand only got 17 votes!

So according to that poll there clearly seems to be a demand of some sort for this loot/no loot toggle and adding it could greatly increase the amount of players who'd want to pvp on Chaos/Wild. It would make sense to add, even if it's just a temporary test, since according to the poll the amount of players who hate to lose their stuff exceeds the amount of players who want to loot their opponents, almost by a factor of 2.

Also that poll has been taken by everyone.  Including mostly people who don't PvP anyway.  So very skewed results.

These Toggling of looting and such breaks the mechanics of sandbox pvp.  I will say the ideas are pretty good, but they fit much better on the freedom servers.  With all options defaulted to off so people dont have to pvp.  If you have a server that is FFA pvp with no restrictions, then those who join the server will be told how the server works and there fore shouldn't need toggles as everyone is playing under the same rules.

Its not necessarily about "burning a house down" or "moving backwards"  This is about catering to the 3rd set of players. Those of us who vets who want an unrestricted sandbox, and the sandbox gamers out there from older sandbox games and the like.  The ideas of limited PvP where players have choice whether to fight or not fit perfectly into a freedom server ruleset, as we've already discussed, some crafters want a taste of pvp, but don't want to live in it.  I'm not toting that Chaos should be "reverted" or taken "backwards".  I merely use the "old" wurm as an example of being closer to the goal of a limitless map/server for the 3rd group of players like myself.

Having toggle-able pvp options very much so defeats the purpose of an unrestricted world.  And takes away part of the fear and luster that a scarey/amazing world like that has.  But I again will say I think those options are a great idea for freedom players.  A great way for newer players to get a grasp of pvp before maybe deciding to head to Epic or a dangerous world like Chaos.

[Nazaryx 0]

Also that poll has been taken by everyone.  Including mostly people who don't PvP anyway.  So very skewed results.

That's kind of the point; figuring out what turns players off about Wurm PvP.  It doesn't matter if they PvP or not.  In fact, if they don't PvP, obviously there are things they don't like about wurm PvP. While the poll can hardly be considered definitive, it can serve as a loose indication of where the problems are.  If we can determine what about Wurm's PvP players don't like, we can try to make it better, and encourage more people to PvP.

[Makarus 458]

And really, whats with these weird ideas?  Did you people ever play on wild during gold1 or early gold2? Or play beta?  I'm not sure where all of these anti-wurm ideas are spawning from.  Not a fan of destroying the Core gameplay.

No. I didn't play back then. I heard of Wurm later on, through my own search for a new game. Wurm was interesting, it fit many things I was looking for but never had the time to really develop my character. My goal has always been to join on Wild.

These discussions might not be as "anti-wurm" as you may think, Red.

While, personally... I'm all for original Wild, I'd rather keep the server as it is; with some minor changes made to it to allow it to attract new people, and remain open... This is much better then to replace it with some new pvp server, and have to completely throw out all that is possible with this server.

This discussion is like a negotiation.

I see multiple parties involved :

1: Old/new time Wilders wanting a return to how the game used to be.

2: New/old timers wanting Wild/Chaos for a less restricted game play.

3: Hardcore 'carebear' types wanting the assurances of safety in a freedom server.

Following points will have the argument as i see it from the standpoint of each party involved, with an opposing argument beneath it.

Again, this is as I personally see it. I've tried to limit my own bias, and summarize the 26 pages preceding this with what I hope is a constructive post.

---------------

-Party 1 wants the full fledged pvp returned to the game, so that they can have absolute freedom in attacking anyone and anything if they so desire. someone sets up near you? burn their house and drain their token. They offend you? Kill them. It goes beyond this somewhat, but this is the basis of the argument, I think... absolute freedom, build/craft/terraform/kill/destroy.

-Against this, one may argue that a lot of time and effort, sometimes coin goes in to the development of these deeds, characters, gear, etc that is being destroyed or stolen... It causes resentment when things happen, a lot of people don't want this. Though one can build a respectable character within a few short months, doing anything but residing behind the same walls as the elites makes it difficult to accomplish. With the thought that they could roll through you and your whole village without much of a problem.

Party 2 wants the ability to retaliate against griefers, enjoy player versus player combat in controlled scenarios. Either in a contained pvp zone, or by means of game mechanics to pick and choose how deep into the pvp aspect you wish to go. There is freedom in this, the ability to join in on pvp, or hide out when you don't think you're ready.

-Against this, one may argue that the mechanics put in place to manage this "willing depth of pvp involvement" puts too many limitations on the freedom of the open sandbox gameplay. Everyone and everything should be open to conflict. You're on the pvp server, after all.

-Party 3 wants absolute safety and a crafting/terraforming based village life. A relaxed atmosphere where one can do most things without interfering with day to day going-ons of other characters. If pvp exists it should be on Epic, or a restricted access server. This is Freedom Isles, after all.

-Against this, one may argue that there are multiple servers for this kind of thing. That there needs to be free access to a pvp environment that isn't epic, nor an additional server. "not enough population as it is", and that restricting the pvp outright limits the potential of the sandbox environment.

----------------

The survival of Wild/Chaos is dependent on agreeing upon a compromise. We cannot all have every last thing we want. Wild, though awesome in my opinion was dwindling before Epic... It's semi stagnant now, though slowly growing with this addition to the Freedom clusters.

Like it or not, currently all play types now have a vested interest in the direction Wild is taking from here on out. Players have put real time, effort, and money into this server under the assumption that the PvP aspect was being reworked, and possibly limited outright.

Again, a compromise must be reached, we need to agree upon some sort of middle ground... Like it or not, I think this middle ground is within the range of what i marked as "party 2"... the "managed involvement" pvp.

If the middle ground solution is what happens, this is what i see: (slang terms not meant to offend. Merely encompass a play type.)

Hardcore pvpers, you will have to formally declare war, and go full loot on permissions if this is the change made... -For attacking deeds.-

Carebears, You can be safe within your deeds, as you have paid for safety, and opted out of gains made through pvp action.

All players will need to be in a deed that has accepted pvp, in order to pvp. Keeps some fairness to the concept.

Open "wild" areas will be pvp enabled.

Again, and lastly :

The goal is not to destroy the concept of Wurm. This is to help it grow, expand upon the idea.

While I personally would love to raze every opposing village to the ground and kill their cattle, salt (or take my large maul to) their fields, etc...

I see that: that level of hardcore pvp intent does not appeal to a vast majority of the players in this game, or many others. Let's keep this server alive. It's worth a lot to Wurm's history, especially when you consider how much has happened there. To live, it needs to adapt.

[Jomarni 2]

We are in danger of over cooking the pot with so many seemingly complex changes/restrictions.

PVE's have Independence, Deliverance and Exodus to build whatever they want without fear of attack. PVP players have the Epic cluster. Having a third type of Map where PVP is fully active would allow the long-term PVPs a proper place to do what they do, but would also allow curious PVE players a chance to "dip their toes" in PVP without having to start with nothing using an Epic portal.

Personally I feel a full PVP Chaos  (albeit without traditional PMKs) provides the perfect middle ground.

[iaqb 4]

We are in danger of over cooking the pot with so many seemingly complex changes/restrictions.

PVE's have Independence, Deliverance and Exodus to build whatever they want without fear of attack. PVP players have the Epic cluster. Having a third type of Map where PVP is fully active would allow the long-term PVPs a proper place to do what they do, but would also allow curious PVE players a chance to "dip their toes" in PVP without having to start with nothing using an Epic portal.

Personally I feel a full PVP Chaos  (albeit without traditional PMKs) provides the perfect middle ground.

this.

Its so simple, just open the pvp, thats all, no need to code anything, we will deal with everything by our self (no need pmks, we have alliances, enemies?? it will be up to our own will, if we want to kill someone or not, its a sandbox)

[Ecrir 887]

Like they always say K.I.S.S.   is the best policy.

Quite true, KISS is a very good policy to follow. The loot toggle idea luckily is very simple and so does fall under the KISS policy.

The warring deed idea is pretty simple too, especially if it works on an alliance basis instead of village basis but either way it's simple. The issue that people can hide stuff on a neutral deed isn't much of a problem if it's alliance based since you wouldn't be able to do much on neutral deeds unless they are part of the alliance (people can always hide goods on alts anyway).

So both ideas are really simple and basic, they are pretty much just toggles in game with cool downs, it can't get simpler then that. KISS all the way.

[Sharkin 1,319]

Rolf, please post your thoughts!

[Red 81]

We are in danger of over cooking the pot with so many seemingly complex changes/restrictions.

PVE's have Independence, Deliverance and Exodus to build whatever they want without fear of attack. PVP players have the Epic cluster. Having a third type of Map where PVP is fully active would allow the long-term PVPs a proper place to do what they do, but would also allow curious PVE players a chance to "dip their toes" in PVP without having to start with nothing using an Epic portal.

Personally I feel a full PVP Chaos  (albeit without traditional PMKs) provides the perfect middle ground.

this.

Its so simple, just open the pvp, thats all, no need to code anything, we will deal with everything by our self (no need pmks, we have alliances, enemies?? it will be up to our own will, if we want to kill someone or not, its a sandbox)

+1 again.  There's no reason to over complicate things.  Just give us back a server with no restrictions. 

My only reason for suggesting a reset is to guarantee rolf a boost in numbers at least for a while, but he could in the least lift the restrictions put on Chaos.

Chaos should be scarey to travel too since its a free and open land full of murderers and crafters alike.  That was always a luster of wild back in the days of JK home.

-Keep it simple silly*

*edited for the children

...

Still, like other people your whole idea seems to land on making wild/chaos into some new complicated place to appease current Freedom/Epic players.

Those players already have a place to play, what we need is a place for us runaways, vets, and hopefully some new players with the same scary un-restricted mindset to play.

All of your (and others) ideas definately aren't bad. Hell they are pretty good really, but they fit into a Freedom server not wild/chaos.  Wild/Chaos is about no limits and players having to be the mediators and creators.  The players are the ones in charge not game mechanics, and thats something we all agree with when we start playing, so we don't need game mechanics to limit is. Period. Rolf should listen to some of these ideas for the freedom cluster, but don't waste wild/chaos on it.  Freedom has plenty of room as is.

[tintin 12]

Guys after the discussion that was seen in IRC with Rolf in regards to this topic, we are NOT getting wild back. So its time to move on with his next idea.

Anyways, seems to me the best course is to open a new very small and open PvP server instead with the suggested rules.

This is the last only viable option for us in regards to FFA PvP. If I can't get wild back I'll take the next best thing. A server on the East side of Deliverance that is FFA PvP.

Returning the kingdoms is a noidea. I've explained it extensively in threads before adding Chaos to the freedom cluster. We can't have warring kingdoms in the freedom cluster without major changes.

Can't have kingdom's on the freedom cluster without major changes and we all know that major changes in code done by Rolf. We will leave it at that. So the quickest and simplest solution is to add a FFA PvP server to the East side of Deliverance and we all have at it. The thing with this to is that if we have a FFA PvP area since we are all Freedom, Tower Guards will not work against the enemy but only against mobs. Which honestly, I think I am good with.

So Rolf... Go head, give us a FFA PvP Server on the east side of Deliverance and go from there.

[Red 81]

*sigh* hurray for tiny maps.

I wish Rolf knew this shouldn't be about PvP...  This is solely about getting an unrestricted sandbox back.  Small map will be a nice restriction *Eyeroll*

I think this small pvp server is a swell idea for freedomers, but I don't think it solves any problems.  Then again I'm just looking for a multiplayer sandbox game to play.

Returning the kingdoms is a noidea. I've explained it extensively in threads before adding Chaos to the freedom cluster. We can't have warring kingdoms in the freedom cluster without major changes.

Still not understanding why the "freedom cluster" thing. The majority of people who actually care about chaos/wild aren't going to be people who travel back and forth between the servers. (yes i understand there will be some) So i feel that freedomers, if they really want it, should have there own way to pvp (i.e. small server or suggestions made in this thread) I just don't understand the limitations when theres a strive for no limitations (besides those of technical nature of course)

I suppose that means that a 3rd "cluster" may need to be made with its own skill/item sets. Just call it wild.

When a player finishes the tutorial he's offered 3 choices.  PvP quicker paced(epic), Pve crafting/building(Freedom), or Unrestricted/Dangerous sandbox(Wild).

Then I suppose you could leave chaos as a pvp place for freedomers.

[Jomarni 2]

For those of us who cannot spend all day on IRC, it would be handy if we could have some sort of official update on this thread.

[zadar 2]

Why not make a new server type? Some new type of Wild?

Server type eg: Epic, Epic(Home), Freedom, Wild.

[tintin 12]

Why not just have a big ol map on the east side of deliverance for FFA PvP. your villages and your alliance are your "kingdom"

[Wulfgar 1,119]

For those of us who cannot spend all day on IRC, it would be handy if we could have some sort of official update on this thread.

Indeed, because from what I can gather from what few lines he bothered to reply in this thread, Chaos will then be turned into a full freedom server.

We don't need another full freedom server at the moment. We need more players first, and new players and old alike prefer to settle on fresh maps, not

maps that has seen 5(?) years of terraforming and war.

[iaqb 4]

Why not just have a big ol map on the east side of deliverance for FFA PvP. your villages and your alliance are your "kingdom"

because adding another server is the worst idea, we already have too many of them. It wont give you many new players, but it will spread (already small) community even more.