The idea there is nothing new, there is actually a Game in development which is fully based around that idea.
Given, some people might say that LiF lacks proper world PvP, which is actually true... but in the end full world PvP WILL lead to a winner and a dead server/game.... server stagnation.
I don't want to make an advertisement for another game here, so I simply copy/paste their view on 2 worlds (campaign and persisting)
...
To illustrate this point, let me use an analogy. Every Thanksgiving, my family gets together for a game of RISK. Only it’s not “let’s play Risk every thanksgiving” – it’s “let’s pick up from where we left last year, in the SAME game of Risk.”
The same game. The same conflict. Year after year after year:
Imagine that, in year 2, Uncle Bob starts winning.
In year 3, Uncle Bob presses the advantage. By the end of this game session, Bob basically owns the board.
Fast forward 10 years. We’re still playing that same game. Uncle Bob is now an unassailable tyrant.
The other players (i.e. everyone other than Uncle Bob) all wander away from the board to watch football or something – because they know they don’t stand a chance. If a new player joins the game, Bob snuffs them out in their infancy, and they quit immediately.
Everyone is bored. Even Uncle Bob is bored – because he hasn’t faced a challenge in over a decade. But he won’t give up by choice. That isn’t human nature.
In XXX, I called this phenomenon server stagnation. The game is incredibly fun – right up until someone wins. Then, without a server reset, the game stagnates and everyone quits.
TL;DR version:
One of the key elements of strategy games is they have a win condition followed by a board reset. You start the game, you play the game, someone wins. You reset the board and start a new game.
One of the key elements of MMOs is that they are persistent. Actually, that’s not the right word, is it? They’re permanent. Players expect to play them over years, and the game world is (generally) static.
These two design goals seem diametrically opposed: the game must reset and the game must last forever.
...
The general gist was, that you transfer YOUR character to a campaign world and fight there. From time to time you can export ressources from that campaign world, or import ressources from the persisting world. That way each guild can choose how much ressources they want to put into the game.
Yet the keyfactor there was, that the persisting world was not really important and just shows all triumps you achieved in the campaign, the persisting world also didn't provide you with all ressources you needed. All that doesn't really fit to Life is Feudal.
If you fully comit to the 2 server idea as well, the persisting world will not be very important anymore, you will probably see an even higher drop of players on that world and most players will stick with the campaign world. This might upset some people, especially the ones who build up a huge castle in the persisting world... for nothing.
Furthermore, crafting and building in the new world should NOT take as long as it does in the persisting world, I would even say that the character you put into the campaign world should be the same, with the same skillset, which you use in the persisting world. I question the skill loss though and think a longer lasting ressurrection sickness might work better for the campaign worlds and to promote more PvP.
We very much want all our players to express their opinions on such important matters, but we obviously can't force anyone to do so.
