I had this discussion with you in game, and while I've given up on you ever understanding where I'm coming from, I'm going to quote you and reply in an effort to help others understand my position. A counter reply is not necessary. I have never had zone population as an indicator of success. I don't care about population beyond the fact that it's easier to balance settings with more people online. If I feel a change is necessary (as in the case of basing with item spam) I will make that change regardless of how my current player base feels about it. I'm not making the zone for the player base of the month, I'm making it for me. I'm making a zone I would enjoy to play. If you don't like it, feel free to move on like the hundreds of players before you. I did the exact same thing two or three years ago, when I completely redid all the settings. The zone population dropped to 1/3, but those that stayed liked it a lot more, and eventually we grew to a larger pop than before. People were screaming at me that I'd killed the zone, as they are now (actually, truth be told, fewer people have been complaining this time around). Being supreme dictator means that I have to accept all the blame for decision that has been detrimental. On the other hand, it also means I get credit for bringing the zone to this point. If there was population to kill, it means I somehow managed to get population. If I've done it in the past, you'll have to trust my judgment to get it back. I don't have any desire to alienate people, but when it's a choice between population and gameplay, I'll choose gameplay every time. well said. I will stick out the change and see if i like it more after I finally get some money
