PP_MSU

Suggestions on the Sustainable Development of the MSN Project— Focusing on Community Interaction and Player Base Expansion Dear MSU Team Members and Fellow Long-term Players： Whether in Web2 or Web3, whether a game project can truly endure in the long run ultimately depends on whether it can form a stable small-scale society built on interpersonal interaction and mutual support. Technical architecture, economic models, and gameplay design are certainly important,but they can only generate continuous value and vitality when supported by a sufficient scale of real user participation. Without the flow and recognition of people, even the most refined product is prone to gradually falling into a state of “desertification.” Let us use a simple analogy： A well-crafted game that long lacks effective user growth and external communication is like a fine bottle of wine hidden deep in a cellar—only the owner and a few close friends know its taste. They may sincerely praise its quality and value, yet it remains difficult for a broader group to resonate with it. The outside world has neither experience nor awareness of it, so the so-called “preciousness” stays at the level of self-evaluation and struggles to transform into a consensus that can be jointly verified by a larger gaming community. This is one of the core contradictions currently facing MSN. As players who have been deeply involved for more than two years, we clearly understand the project’s strengths and limitations. There is no overly burdensome daily task pressure, monetization is relatively restrained, the trading system is highly free, overall progression is newer compared with most similar servers, and the content has undergone targeted specialization. More importantly, measured by current token prices and entry costs, MSN indeed offers relatively high cost-effectiveness for those whose primary goal is pure entertainment—the same investment that can often only support a mid-to-upper-tier experience on other servers has the opportunity here to reach higher-level content. These characteristics objectively exist and form the project’s differentiated foundation. However, if advantages cannot be seen and experienced by enough people, they are difficult to convert into a positive ecological cycle. 1、Clear supply-demand imbalance has already appeared within the server: players who want to buy equipment and items struggle to find suitable sellers, while those who want to sell assets lack sufficient buyers. 2、Insufficient liquidity directly constrains players’ long-term retention and willingness to reinvest. The root of this problem is not the design of any single economic model, but the fact that the overall user base has long failed to expand effectively. I once had an experience with the MapleStory TMS mobile game: At the time, I purchased an account for approximately RMB 10,000 and spent another RMB 10,000 on equipment. When adjusting the account or gear, I was often able to complete matching between buyers and sellers in a relatively short time. The logic behind this is not complicated: a sufficiently large player base makes value anchoring more transparent and price fluctuations relatively controllable; there are ample participants on both the supply and demand sides, so “where there is demand, there is production, and where there is production, more people can obtain what they need at a reasonable cost.” When I eventually left, the account as a whole still achieved a certain profit. I am not citing this case primarily to emphasize the profit. What I want to say remains the same point: without people, nothing else matters. It must be people mutually recognizing and identifying with something. But when the population base is too small, recognition cannot take hold. Everyone understands the difference between riding a roller coaster alone and riding it with another person, right? This case illustrates that the key variables determining asset liquidity and value stability have never been the labels of “Web2” or “Web3” themselves, but the number and activity level of real participants. People have always been the starting point of everything. Therefore, if the project truly wishes to go further, progress must be advanced simultaneously on two levels: First, strengthen in-depth communication with existing players. In addition to routine replies on social media, it is recommended to establish more systematic and direct communication mechanisms so that players can genuinely feel the team’s continuous investment and sincerity toward the project. Transparent information synchronization and responses to issues are themselves important supports for community confidence. Second, substantive expansion of the user base must be treated as a priority. Relying solely on natural spread within the existing circle makes it difficult to break the current closed state. Consideration can be given to targeted content placement and advertising on platforms such as YouTube, collaborations with creators or public figures who possess real influence, or in-depth linkages with Web3 communities that have a good atmosphere and higher user quality. The key is to choose channels that truly possess communication power and user foundations, rather than partnerships that appear lively on the surface but lack substantive effect. Only when external users continue to enter can internal supply-demand relations possibly return to health, allowing trading, social interaction, and content experience to form a positive feedback loop. Ultimately, Web2 and Web3 are not a matter of superiority or inferiority, but choices under different stages and entry points. What remains truly constant is human participation and recognition. Only when enough people are willing to enter, experience, interact, and stay will the project’s value move from the self-evaluation of a minority to a consensus that can be verified by a broader group. This is also the direction we, as long-term players, sincerely hope to see. The above suggestions are proposed based on actual gameplay experience and are offered for the team’s reference. We look forward to more substantive communication and progress in the future. @MaplestoryU #MaplestoryN @nexpacetime

[1/10] Here's what's next for Dynamic Pricing, the system that sets gear enhancement costs. I want to explain why we built it, where it has fallen short, and what we're planning to change. I'll focus on the big picture and simplify some details to make it easier to follow.

The community has shared various takes on Chaos Slime lately, but my main focus is on the reward claim restriction. Disclaimer: These are strictly my personal views and do not represent the broader community. This Chaos difficulty is vastly different from KMS and other servers—a unique MSN version with no previous guides or clears to reference. It is genuinely challenging, and I fully support that direction. Some players think it is too easy, while others find it just right. I respect all perspectives. However, tuning boss difficulty should never simply mean endlessly inflating HP pools. With many more bosses lined up for release, infinite HP scaling will lead to disastrous progression bottlenecks down the road. Difficulty aside, the most widespread complaint is the binary choice in the "Ascendant Tier Raffle" between Hard Will and Chaos Slime. Forcing players who can clear Chaos Slime to pick one over the other is an absurd design choice. Normally, high-CP players wouldn't deliberately carry low-CP players through Hard Will (at most, they might take mid-tier players). Doing so dilutes individual raffle odds and makes the run more demanding. While short-term personal yields might seem okay, as more players adopt this carry model, overall returns across the board will decline. Without this restriction, established static parties would simply continue as normal. Five weeks into Hard Will, clear numbers have stabilized. Taking the Errai server as an example: on August 13, there were 143 raffle participants, 175 tokens, and a 15.4% win rate. Under the either/or restriction, many Chaos Slime runners have started forming "2 high-CP carries + 4 low-CP passengers" setups. On Errai, I estimate roughly 7–8 six-man parties clearing Chaos Slime. Using 7 parties (42 players) as a baseline: • That is 42 top players bowing out of the Hard Will raffle. • These players previously accounted for around 14 parties (~84 tokens). • If 4 parties (24 players) pivot to carrying low-CP players (2 carries + 4 leeches), that creates 12 carry parties. This only accounts for a 2:4 ratio; we could easily see 1:5 setups emerge, introducing massive party-finder friction and toxic carry dynamics. We also risk a scenario where Hard Will EV falls below Normal Will (excluding jackpot drops). Is an ecosystem healthy when players who meet the Hard threshold are pushed toward Normal just to avoid raffle dilution? I strongly believe it isn't. Some might argue that sacrificing baseline EV to gamble on high-tier drops is a valid personal choice. I understand that view—it's simply players making the most rational play under flawed rules. Key Takeaways: • The binary raffle restriction ultimately benefits low-CP players getting carried into Hard Will. • Mid-tier players who can only clear Hard Will and cannot touch Chaos Slime become the biggest losers due to artificial participant dilution. This was my day-one projection on August 20, though the dynamic may shift next week since the devs plan to buff boss HP. The current progression pacing is bizarre. Historically in KMS, V4 was never released alongside Will. Scaling boss HP alongside player progression is reasonable, but endlessly inflating boss HP creates an unhealthy ecosystem—a sentiment shared across low-CP, high-CP, and whale players alike. I genuinely hope the dev team thoroughly tests party buffs before shipping content. For a legacy IP, this feels like an amateur oversight. Nerfing bosses because they were overtuned is common, but mid-cycle buffs because a boss was undertuned? Has this ever happened in any other version? Truly baffling. @MaplestoryU @nexpacetime #MapleStoryN #MSU

I have already found evidence that he had implemented robotic batch production more than a year ago. I don't know how to express my emotions anymore. I have been serving the community for two years with great dedication. @7Chisei Making money through cheating and then mocking us and insulting the MSU team and players What do the other players think? Do you think this is fair? @MaplestoryU #MaplestoryN