I agree - bad idea to start changing world settings once started. Make a new world a few days from now... people will play it since everyone's stuck indoors at the moment.
@Desert Commando releasing closely grouped worlds is also a bad idea because a lot of people playing this world if morale stays on would simply quit and start the non morale one... having a month to month and a half gap between worlds is ideal to fill them as best as they can so players stick on them, rather than ghosting more than a half world and essentially having no people playing or spending on it..
either way lets see what CM's decide is the best course..
Personally, as Bacon said above, the proposed change does affect alliances plans. However on the other hand, it would have a significant reduction of the player base on this world. I would estimate 60-70% of high tier players scramming and going to 125 if they allow it. Imo Grepolis should take the hit and allow 125 to be pushed ahead and released and let there be a 2 month break between 125 and 126
Thank you,Why is morale even an option on conquest worlds? It is only used and abused by non new players, going directly against the point of its creation. This is a easy vote yes for me, on any cq world
alliance limit 100??? so you want to have the whole MRA in one ally....good move chuckHonestly, just make it the next world.
Speed 3/4 conquest
Alliance limit: 100
alliance limit 100??? so you want to have the whole MRA in one ally....good move chuck
Everyone wishes that was possible but it can't be enforced. The only thing they can do is turn off shared forums but the line between acting with another ally and just having similar interests is non-existant.Just do 15-20 per ally, no sisters or pacts
If you look back at latos the number of people who joined the world was outrageous. If the alliance cap is low, people are going to have 3+ alliances. JUST SAYING