Project: Fixing the World Release Rate.

wooly84

Phrourach
only 27 people out of the whole grepo community agree with this or you not been adding names to the list maybe MM in all worlds with a link to this page would help
 

Awesomeness.

Phrourach
Please don't make a new world now as the above player is insisting, he is new to the community and has a narrow view of it, so he can't see the long-term damage the current world release dates are causing us.
 

Zero Point

Phrourach
while frequent world releases admitedly exasperate the situation, mid to late game game play sucks anyway on most servers. early game play is exciting and fast paced while later on in the game managing masses of cities and being forced to attack from nearly all of them to gain a single city from a capable player , leaves players resorting to attacking week or inactive targets also the mass of players in an alliance with 20/30 cities can leave an alliance spread out and with some of a team unable to help other team mates due to distances.

personaly ive asked for servers to not last so long a server that lasted only 6 months start to finnish would be much better even with the current end game and players are more likly to stay start to finnish for a shorter time span
 

ch0pperMad

Guest
Perhaps it's time for grepo to start managing and releasing servers based on people's preferences, clearly threre are people who are mostly only interested in early-game-like play whereas a lot of people like to take their time and be more stable in one server for a longer period of time.
As making even faster servers is kind of pointless, this could perhaps be solved by lowering the WW (or for future new system, what ever that will be) requirements, so that some servers would enter the final phase much earlier than they do now, say in 6 months or so as proposed by the poster above.

//That would create a situation where WW stage sees much more players and much more competing alliances that would in fact be a lot closer together and would also make it more difficult for alliances to have 100% owned-islands. That would add a whole other dimension to the WW stage where we'd have people who are still interested enough in the game and the world wouldn't be divided by just a couple of mega-alliances.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Zero Point

Phrourach
Perhaps it's time for grepo to start managing and releasing servers based on people's preferences, clearly threre are people who are mostly only interested in early-game-like play whereas a lot of people like to take their time and be more stable in one server for a longer period of time.
As making even faster servers is kind of pointless, this could perhaps be solved by lowering the WW (or for future new system, what ever that will be) requirements, so that some servers would enter the final phase much earlier than they do now, say in 6 months or so as proposed by the poster above.

//That would create a situation where WW stage sees much more players and much more competing alliances that would in fact be a lot closer together and would also make it more difficult for alliances to have 100% owned-islands. That would add a whole other dimension to the WW stage where we'd have people who are still interested enough in the game and the world wouldn't be divided by just a couple of mega-alliances.
sounds like my dream come true , i also beleive that if a player can see the end of a server in sight then the will stay strong.
18mth to 2 years to end a server is to much commitment when you need to be able to play 4hrs minimum a day to be a truly competative

keep the release rate once a month 1 conquest 1 revolt and make the end game come a little sooner.

ive asked for this and the reply i got was its not finacialy viable jiba jaba (shakes head dismissivly) surely more players committed and competative for a shorter time equates to the same a less players for longer.
 

Praehelios

Guest
I whole heartily support this. Currently, I'm playing Ialysos. Players see the grip we have already and are just leaving for newer servers. Spacing the worlds out would force them to stay and actually TRY. It would also mean a lot more players on each server to make tings a lot more difficult and interesting. In my opinion, its a no brainer and should already be in motion.
 

The Spitze

Guest
Myself, and my friend BigYellowBananer both give this a thumbs up, and will support :)
 

Dannyboy333

Guest
Can i suggest an alternative solution to the same problem?

How about not allowing players to join two world in a row? I.e. if you join en76, you then cannot join en77, but you can join 78. That way, you perhaps solve the problem of people giving up easily and joining the next world, because they cant, but retain the ability for new players to join a world more quickly.
 

SamuraiDragon

Guest
Can i suggest an alternative solution to the same problem?

How about not allowing players to join two world in a row? I.e. if you join en76, you then cannot join en77, but you can join 78. That way, you perhaps solve the problem of people giving up easily and joining the next world, because they cant, but retain the ability for new players to join a world more quickly.
inno won't do that, they'd lose 40% of their market if they did.
 
Can i suggest an alternative solution to the same problem?

How about not allowing players to join two world in a row? I.e. if you join en76, you then cannot join en77, but you can join 78. That way, you perhaps solve the problem of people giving up easily and joining the next world, because they cant, but retain the ability for new players to join a world more quickly.
Surprisingly, I don't support this. Reason being is that sometimes a world can be a bust.

I say no to this for a good reason.
Care to share it instead of being ominous? Or is this like one of those political campaign ads on TV where its a "good reason" but for super secret reasons that would compromise national security it can't be shared. :p

Will add the new names up soon.