Shorter S revs

[barneygale]

Here's a chart of the length of survival revs historically:

 

 

Current rev is 71 days old, older than all but the most recent 4 revs.

 

Can be bring rev lengths back down to 40-60 days so that activity doesn't drop off so drastically? Every time we have a dead rev more people leave and don't return.

[Mrloud15]

This is something we have looked at before, and I do agree that this rev is really old. However, one of the ideas brought up during the meeting that I really liked was to make S more of a long term game. I think that just making the revs shorter is only putting a band-aid on the real issue, which, I feel, is that it there are no long term goals, only short term goals. Within a few hours a new players can already have quite a few sets of protection IV diamond armor and have a decent base. In the past, admins have tried to make getting these items easy in hopes that it would encourage more pvp, but I feel that it has done the opposite. I would really like to make S into something where the revs are active and fun enough that a new rev is not required only after a few weeks.

 

I'm still working out how to go about doing this, and anyone has any suggestions please feel free to let me know.

[barneygale]

Longer revs would work if there was content constantly added. I've heard from a couple of people who are quite keen for quests/challenges being the main focus of survival, with the normal gameplay playing a supporting role. People always seem to be up for building 5k-style challenges - we could add small ones every 5 days and record completion count/times per player.

 

If we're keen on doing a major overhaul of survival, I think we could still end this rev early and have the next rev as "the last ever revision of survival as you know it!". It's going to take a few weeks to get a "new survival" that will stay interesting for at least a few months. We might as well start a new rev while you're working on it.

Edited May 25, 2014 by barneygale

[shanty_sniper]

just pick a time frame and stick with it.

[barneygale]

Yah I mean if you think this could take at least ~40 days we can definitely squeeze another rev in.

 

Could make it a "best of" rev using old arenas, spawn, terrain gen, possibly old-style mechanics? Community voted?

[PeteLucas]

"That I really liked"

So because you liked it it happened.

Christ. So many people have complained about server lengths being too long. And even without the complaints its logical to assume the longer it goes on the more stale it becomes.

[EeHee2000]

Smaller maps + shorter revs = far more action packed and less stale revisions which will help us to avoid the month-long dead periods on survival, in which we have a maximum of about 8 players and an average of 0. Simple. 

Edited July 25, 2014 by EeHee2000

[roastnewt]

Smaller maps + shorter revs = far more action packed and less stale revisions which will help us to avoid the month-long dead periods on survival, in which we have a maximum of about 8 players and an average of 0. Simple. 

 

To a point, obviously.  Too short revs, and people won't bother with large builds, and the server isn't very attractive to new players if everyone just lives huts filled with chests.

[Gizzletinks]

now that we are using citadel and basically copying civ 1.0 (with improvements) s rev's should last a long time, over 4 months. Civ 1.0 lasted over a year and a half and the only reason they stopped it was because of technical problems.

[barneygale]

Agree there - my post only applied to old-formula revs