Forum:Wiki worlds redux
This thread changed the wiki worlds to 40/41 because the previous 39/40 setup no longer worked as W40 had become P2P. It was further based on the idea/precedent that the P2P and F2P worlds needed to be numerically sequential.
I would like to overturn this action. Not procedurally, since everything there was valid; rather I'd like to overturn it substantively because it was a poor decision. There is no actual reason the worlds need to be sequential. Our userbase overwhelmingly has members and we should not upset them all for our, like, five regular F2P players. The switch from 28/29 to 39/40 was necessary because the lag was unacceptable to most players on W28. But this move has no real merit since the worlds don't actually need to be next to each other.
In the roughly six days since the world were officially changed, I've seen a grand total of two people on W40. Most are still using W39—many because they don't even know the worlds changed—so there's no confusion to be had by returning (officially) to W39. Our F2P world can remain 41.
(This is not in YG/CC because our wiki worlds have relevance outside the cc.)
(wszx) 01:08, March 16, 2011 (UTC)
Comment - As the proposer of the last thread, I must admit that I didn't realize it was closed. I also should say that I really don't care what our wiki world is, since I almost never use it anyways. However, I think you bring up some good points. People in general are resistant to change, and perhaps this will fragment the wiki community into the world 39 group and the world 40 group. I think that the lack of people on world 40 is mostly due to a lack of information, since it was not posted anywhere that the wiki worlds changed. But, if people remain on world 39, then I suppose that it's better to cater to the community and switch back. --LiquidTalk 01:56, March 16, 2011 (UTC)
39/41 - Everyone does seem to like 39 and there is no real reason to move if no one is going to use the new worlds. We obviously needed a new f2p world so I agree that should be changed and 41 was used by a few f2p's anyway since it was the easiest.05:29, March 16, 2011 (UTC)
39/41 - As w39 has been my homeworld for years, I may be a bit biased in my comment, but as above, everyone seems to be fine with w39. When I do log on, I commonly see wikians, almost everywhere I go. When I occasionally join the cc, it's packed full of people in w39. 41 seems to be a suitable F2P world.05:56, March 16, 2011 (UTC)
157 for mems please - :3
But seriously, 39/41 sounds good. Ajraddatz 04:09, March 17, 2011 (UTC)
Support - 39 is very nice, although "5 F2P players" may be exaggerating things I have noticed noticed the f2p wiki world isn't as popular as the member one, what f2p players the cc does get is often scattered across different worlds. On top of which it serves no real benefit for the f2p and member worlds being 1 apart aside from being easy to remember, in which case 2 shouldn't really make that big of a difference. fetus is my son and I love him. 08:17, March 17, 2011 (UTC)
39/41 - This selection provides a sustainable environment where players can build and sandbox together to their heart's content without fear of griefers. Oh wait, that's MineCraft... then what the hell is this game... Matt (t) 06:32, March 22, 2011 (UTC)
Comment - As it currently stands, people have yet to move from server 39 to 40. I have found 39 as my homeworld after Jagex's moving of sever 28 out of Florida to somewhere closer to Poland, breaking everyone I knew then to different worlds. Other users have stated that it never made sense to have them side-by-side. It also appears that the majority of users in the Clan Chat at any given time are members. When there are many free players in the chat, they don't appear to be on a single server, rather they are split more times than a Outback Steakhouse Bloomin' Onion. Ryan PM 02:15, March 26, 2011 (UTC)