Went up with bugs...
Bugs exploited
Reset because no one told be about bugs for 3 months
How the worlds evolve.
Leig as a fellow friend, there is no one to blame, when i told you of the school bug, it was after certain debates with myself, i at first just took it as how you had set it up, on alot of worlds players are not aloud to build schools, i simply just asked and you said that was a bdat bug, my bad but its how i first thought of it.
also im eager to know what other bugs were found, and how they were exploited.
also im eager to know what other bugs were found, and how they were exploited.
alot of real life economy stuff could apply to the game, but it doesen't for the simple fact that this is a game.
in real life, thiers thousands or millions of people in an area, 10 different people with drasticly different prices will still make alot of money. people are forced to be poor, or can enjoy being rich and have to live with thier mistakes.
but, in the game, if one person sells cheaper, nearly everybody that knows of the building will go to that building to do business. people who make mistakes can die, get reset, and start fresh again as if nothing happened except for free money in the economy. and poor people aren't forced to be poor, they can just stop playing leaving only the rich to battle amongst themselves.
i'm not saying that not reseting definatly wont work at all, of course a world will still be somewhat playable 6 months after it starts. as long as thiers 2 living players to make food and building materials, an economy can go. but my main issue about this whole no world reset thing is why its worthwhile to do?
i mean, why leave a world empty, and dead (i.e. tunbridge, zion too) when a newly reset world full of economic possibilities for players is undoubtably more popular, fun, and exciting to a vast majarity of the active players?
when tun was new, it often had 5+ players on it, a few months later though it was nearly always empty. if it was reset, it would have had 5+ all the time again. isen't a constant 5+ players on an island more desierable then occasionally somebody logging into it?
heck, i'm all for island longivity also, but trying to do it while keeping it interesting and exciting for the players is the main hardship of it. each zoric i've made has had a more in-depth economy and changes from previous ones, and each time the island gets theoretically longer and longer running. thought i hit on a good combo in zoric 7 by haveing the building decay set to 10 years and no inactivity limit, along with having jehovah buildings collapse in a few real days and a ton of other stuff. watching its progress, i was estimating it to easily last to year 100. of course, then the pc kicked out and the island was lost.
zoric 9 would have lasted a long while also, it was too time consuming though.
zoric 11 was going to be a super in-depth and complex economy with many buildings needing stuff from other buildings (like in roja), but now that i spend alot of time working, i wont have as much time to work on the bdat.
on a side note, i think this whole topic is a kinda hard debate for everybody for 1 simple reason:
different people are on different sides of an economy. some have only played on islands, others have owned them and see a completly different side to the evolution.
in real life, thiers thousands or millions of people in an area, 10 different people with drasticly different prices will still make alot of money. people are forced to be poor, or can enjoy being rich and have to live with thier mistakes.
but, in the game, if one person sells cheaper, nearly everybody that knows of the building will go to that building to do business. people who make mistakes can die, get reset, and start fresh again as if nothing happened except for free money in the economy. and poor people aren't forced to be poor, they can just stop playing leaving only the rich to battle amongst themselves.
i'm not saying that not reseting definatly wont work at all, of course a world will still be somewhat playable 6 months after it starts. as long as thiers 2 living players to make food and building materials, an economy can go. but my main issue about this whole no world reset thing is why its worthwhile to do?
i mean, why leave a world empty, and dead (i.e. tunbridge, zion too) when a newly reset world full of economic possibilities for players is undoubtably more popular, fun, and exciting to a vast majarity of the active players?
when tun was new, it often had 5+ players on it, a few months later though it was nearly always empty. if it was reset, it would have had 5+ all the time again. isen't a constant 5+ players on an island more desierable then occasionally somebody logging into it?
heck, i'm all for island longivity also, but trying to do it while keeping it interesting and exciting for the players is the main hardship of it. each zoric i've made has had a more in-depth economy and changes from previous ones, and each time the island gets theoretically longer and longer running. thought i hit on a good combo in zoric 7 by haveing the building decay set to 10 years and no inactivity limit, along with having jehovah buildings collapse in a few real days and a ton of other stuff. watching its progress, i was estimating it to easily last to year 100. of course, then the pc kicked out and the island was lost.
zoric 9 would have lasted a long while also, it was too time consuming though.
zoric 11 was going to be a super in-depth and complex economy with many buildings needing stuff from other buildings (like in roja), but now that i spend alot of time working, i wont have as much time to work on the bdat.
on a side note, i think this whole topic is a kinda hard debate for everybody for 1 simple reason:
different people are on different sides of an economy. some have only played on islands, others have owned them and see a completly different side to the evolution.
my idea of a world was too be based upon WWII Europe theatre, i mean who doesnt like WWII? hell look at how famous BF1942 has become, i remember when the game was nothing more then another box at EB games trying to sell. there would be Axis VS Allies, split up on 2 sides in europe, the axis goal is to take London, and Allies to take Berlin, and besides this would work very well as there are alot of in game models from this era, Biplane, Mustang style plane, ect.
Re: How the worlds evolve.
Like Zaroba says, there are different views to the whole island evolution. While most Island Owners see: DEAD, if they look closer they would see players still playing. Just because nothing seems to have changed for a while doesn't mean that lots of things still aren't happening. For instance, Zoric II back in .03 would be considered dead by todays standards, it was in steady state for at least 6 months, with loads of Jehovan buildings. Yet prices weren't at their lowest and there were still players playing it. There was still an economy even though nothing seemed to be changing.
Of course, we could just attribute it to 'we didn't know better back then' or something like that. Plus the players weren't playing to get into the top ten (as it was impossible), they were playing for more money. Also, there were less players back then.
The way I see it, the econ actually gets easier as time passes. Just because theres less oportunities of growth areas doesn't mean that you still can't sell stuff. It just means the amount of stuff you are selling remains the same. And new players always seem to find something to do. I would say that a steady economy is the perfect place to introduce new players to the workings of the economy, as it makes more sense than the sometimes wildly changing situation of a new world.
Of course, we could just attribute it to 'we didn't know better back then' or something like that. Plus the players weren't playing to get into the top ten (as it was impossible), they were playing for more money. Also, there were less players back then.
The econ wasn't that bad. It was easy.Nigel wrote: "underground" type feel, where battling is common and econ is challenging.
The way I see it, the econ actually gets easier as time passes. Just because theres less oportunities of growth areas doesn't mean that you still can't sell stuff. It just means the amount of stuff you are selling remains the same. And new players always seem to find something to do. I would say that a steady economy is the perfect place to introduce new players to the workings of the economy, as it makes more sense than the sometimes wildly changing situation of a new world.
Re: How the worlds evolve.
i think that's really what the deal is. if you wanna do a short or mid-term thing and reset it now and then, that's yer bag. if you'd rather a longterm thing that comes and goes in terms of popularity / activity, thas fine too.Ghelna8 wrote:Like Zaroba says, there are different views to the whole island evolution.
Yes, that is a reasonably fair comment, everyone is going to see it differently, and you have had many worlds/islands, so I take your opinions seriously - at the very least, the topic is controversialzaroba wrote:on a side note, i think this whole topic is a kinda hard debate for everybody for 1 simple reason:
different people are on different sides of an economy. some have only played on islands, others have owned them and see a completly different side to the evolution.
I guess short term econ is going to be more popular, but it was always nice to play on a world with history - which we don't get any more, perhaps it's just a nostalga thing.
well, i think tunbridge was more of an issue of whirl never being around to take care of it then wanting a long term economy
this could be seen in tunbridge 2. after some code changes to the server which resulted in needing to reassign buildings and models, all the buildings on tun 2 were never fixed. eventually the island was just closed by whoever hosted it because it went 2 months literally unplayable due to the code changes.
this could be seen in tunbridge 2. after some code changes to the server which resulted in needing to reassign buildings and models, all the buildings on tun 2 were never fixed. eventually the island was just closed by whoever hosted it because it went 2 months literally unplayable due to the code changes.
