Second Server

[Haard]

Can't you just open a new server next to the other one, like a double world kind of thing?
The server is over-populated atm

 

[Dyabl0]

Hum........
http://otland.net/f489/one-great-idea-worth-reading-173273/index3.html#post1688517

 

[Shemoz]

Why it should? then player's from this server would move to another .?
and then this sever can be closed coz there wont be any players?

 

[Rafa Di Zeo]

YOUR IDEA IS TOTALY ST.upid, and sorry for being a bit agressive, BUT CAN SOMEONE TELL ME SOMETHING WORST ( TALKING ABOUT THIS GAME ) THAT TO PLAY IN AN EMPTY SERVER?????....MORE PEOPLE = MORE FRIENDS = MORE ENEMIES = MOREEE FUN....

NO SIGNED

 

[Haard]

@Rafa Di Zeo, I'm not taking it personal, I just thought since the server were abit blown up they could start a second one, it have happend before when Softcores had around 300-400 players they launched Moonhawk
Both servers had 200-300 players in around the clock.

 

[Rafa Di Zeo]

The main reason for me, to play shadowcores is the amount of people that is online everyday, it reminds me to Aurera ( where i play, 900- 1000 ppl online everyday), Its the best thing, u always get a team to do quest, u always have a different guild to war, u always get a partner to hunt, etc,etc,etc,etc....A server with 200 ppl for me, is very sad, and if this happens i will leave.

Taking it to an extreme, for me, a great proposal for tibia , but unrealizable due to the complexity, Is to eliminate 25 worlds which are empty, 150, 200 ppls everday, and to make a fusion between other worlds, in order to get worlds with 3000 ppl online...( Obviusly increasing the map ). For me: More ppl = more fun. Less ppl = more sadness.

Relax, its not personal

 

[Haard]

I think a server of 200-300 people is more controlable and stable to play at back at moonhawk we had a team of 20 players and we always sticked together.
We won the wars both against the poles and against other Swedes. We pretty muched controlled that server until it went down and got inactive due to retardarded GM's and a inactive crew.
A server with 1000 players always ends up the same, 500 players running around random PKing and the wars pretty much sucks since the wars does'nt mean anything.

 

[Rafa Di Zeo]

I think a server of 200-300 people is more controlable and stable to play at back at moonhawk we had a team of 20 players and we always sticked together.
We won the wars both against the poles and against other Swedes. We pretty muched controlled that server until it went down and got inactive due to retardarded GM's and a inactive crew.
A server with 1000 players always ends up the same, 500 players running around random PKing and the wars pretty much sucks since the wars does'nt mean anything.

More controlable and stable to play? for who?? what do you mean with that?? lol...

A server with 200 ppl always end up the same....decreasing the amount of players after it get 15 ppl online and it has to be closed...

A SERVER WITH 200 PPL IS FUCKING BORING MAN, IF U ARE NOT PRO ENOUGH TO OWN A SERVER WITH 1000 PPL, MOVE TO A SERVER WHERE THERE IS 40 PPL ONLINE AND TRY TO OWN THERE.

WARS DOESNT MEAN ANYTHING??? U HAVE NO ARGUMENTS TO SAY THAT,

WARS WILL NOT MEAN ANITHING IF THEY IMPLEMENT " PVP BLESSINGS "

 

[Bachy]

i prefer server with 900 players at no with 300 players.. for 300 players go tibia rl