A New Server

[Palem]

Ooo...there might be KDs going to focus there just to have higher chance to 'crown' since theres less competitiion? which would decrease WoL's playerbase even more..? or some crazy hardcore KD going to try crown in both server in same age to make a name for themselves xD Does that counts as 2 crowns or 1? :p

There are no crowns on genesis. Also, kds don't carry over from age to age, so boycotting WoL with your kd would be very dumb and costly.

[DHaran]

No, I meant I believe Bishop was ok with having multiple provinces on the secondary server, but I don't remember where or when he said it, or I might be mistaken entirely.

[Andr3w]

oo..you mean this new server WILL be like genesis..? nah not boycott, just taking the path with least resistance..

[Palem]

I said in the first post to assume it would be like Gen :p

[Elit]

Second server like old gen will be cool. I think its good if rules on second server allow ppl to have 2 provinces with few conditions:
1. different kds
2. different races
3 cant hit/op/intel same target.

In old days there was many ppl run few provinces. If its different races/pers this help ppl to learn game better/faster. If its farms/multies for gbs its bad for all.

[uhum]

Would be nice!

[flutterby]

I think it would cut back on multi'ing on WoL and it would give us something to do when we're waiting for things to happen on our WoL kd. I mean.. how many people started playing 'that other game' because they wanted something to do when they were waiting for things to happen on their WoL province? I think a new server would be a good idea.

[fuzzy|]

they removed genesis for a reason no?

losing players 'cough cough'

[KuhaN]

yes, i get bored easily.

[Ezzerland]

Most importantly, I think the devs would benefit from a second server as this would be used (like genesis) to test changes. It would then be LESS risky for them to do a bold move like removing/changing honor or how war win stats accumulate, because it will not effect the MAIN server until they have an idea of how it comes across. Genesis was never really used properly, but some changes DID get tested on it and moved over.

[Palem]

they removed genesis for a reason no?

losing players 'cough cough'

Genesis was removed because we didn't have enough players/generate enough revenue to keep 2 servers up. However that was done before our credit system was in place. I think if we had another server like Genesis where rosters aren't carried over and there was a large enough demand from the community (currently ~77% from the poll), I think the extra cash from purchased invites combined with perhaps shorter ages since it's for testing purposes could generate a lot of money for the game and not be another financial drag like it used to be.

[Ezzerland]

Genesis was removed because we didn't have enough players/generate enough revenue to keep 2 servers up. However that was done before our credit system was in place. I think if we had another server like Genesis where rosters aren't carried over and there was a large enough demand from the community (currently ~77% from the poll), I think the extra cash from purchased invites combined with perhaps shorter ages since it's for testing purposes could generate a lot of money for the game and not be another financial drag like it used to be.

Reduced costs should apply, ofc. like 10 credits/invite, etc. This is a solid idea. I'd pay to put together a kd in another server. I'm sure others would also.

[goodz]

Genesis was removed because we didn't have enough players/generate enough revenue to keep 2 servers up. However that was done before our credit system was in place. I think if we had another server like Genesis where rosters aren't carried over and there was a large enough demand from the community (currently ~77% from the poll), I think the extra cash from purchased invites combined with perhaps shorter ages since it's for testing purposes could generate a lot of money for the game and not be another financial drag like it used to be.

I don't like the idea of purchasing invites on a genesis server.. might as well just be a pay to play server at that point :p. So I don't think it would create that much revenue. That being said I would certainly play on a genesis style server.

I think shorter ages on the genesis server like 9-10 week with a week break inbetween so it can start say 3 weeks before the start of the wol server for testing etc. But slightly shorter duration and starting beforehand with any big mechanics changes etc. taking place on it first would be ftw. I would assume maybe 2-3k players play on it, so KD sizes around 10 make sense I think. I also think your WOL account would be accountable for any action with your genesis account. AKA your IP multis/trades on gen you may get deleted on WOL.

I would perhaps support something like Genesis KD get 1 invite for the age, plus may purchase up to 2 invites. So you can invite up to 3 people. After that all players will be randoms.

[flutterby]

Reduced costs should apply, ofc. like 10 credits/invite, etc. This is a solid idea. I'd pay to put together a kd in another server. I'm sure others would also.

I agree with the reduced costs (less credits used) because the kingdoms aren't permanent.

[StratOcastle]

Yes. My enjoyment is traveling through the Utopian world. Now with everyone getting more sophisticated it has been less travel friendly. This way I could be happy in a temporary world and settle into a kingdom here as a lifer. I see it as mercenary work. For a few ages it was fun to random into a war or an ailing kingdom that needed a boost. If Aggression(fun ghetto) had sustained it was ideal as they had satellite players come and go quite a bit. Yeah, we'd premature release dragons in hostile and all that - at least we knew our t/ms were sloggers at heart. ;-)