• Dear forum reader,
    To actively participate in our forum discussions or to start your own threads, in addition to your game account you need a forum account. You can     REGISTER HERE!
    Please ensure a translation in to English is provided if your post is not in English and to respect your fellow players when posting.

Do Not Suggest new world for each server. move your city to that world!

Status
Not open for further replies.
Dessire

Dessire

Regent
are you bored of the world where you are playing? you already know a lot of players and guilds there and want something new?
the idea is: inno could make a new world in each server. players can move theirs cities to that new world, they can only move one city (if they have more than one). when you move, your whole city will be there (including your diamonds, your inventory items, etc. you keep your ranking points in the new world. new players cant make a new city in the new world until X days has been passed.
so if you dont care about your ranking position and want to meet new players, make or try new guilds without starting from 0 (booooriiiing!) then move!
post your opinions about the idea of a new world on each server to let already existing players move theirs cities without woring about start from nothing.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
This suggestion has been closed. Votes are no longer accepted.
WykkenFenn

WykkenFenn

Viceroy
Dessire said:
post your opinions about the idea of a new world on each server to let already existing players move theirs cities without woring about start from nothing.
Click to expand...

The International server has 16 worlds, and the US server has 26 worlds, they really don't need any more. Besides, neighborhoods shift periodically, and you get new neighbors anyway. No need to move your city to a new world. And why move to a new world when it's not really new? It looks exactly the same as the world you came from. The scenery doesn't change.

And I'm not sure what you mean by "new players cant make a new city in the new world until X days has been passed." You can only have one city in a world per account. For example: in your account, you have a city in the world Arvahall. You can not make another city in that world in that account.
 

DeletedUser8859

Guest
Lets see... One day before this is implemented...

New World: EN17 "S-new name"
ERA:
  • Since the world is brand new, just a few days old, players are still in low ages,
  • Most advanced maybe just reaching EMA
Great Buildings:
  • BA, IA, and EMA GBs since no one has goods to build higher ones, and
  • there are no High Eras cities yet with high eras buildings to motivate and get a 1st BP.
Attack / Defense Stats:
  • To whatever levels the Zeus, Aachen, Monastery and a few Watchfires from GE allow.
  • Minimal special buildings since no events have occurred in this world yet.
Now, change to "Move" an already developed city from another world is released:

Original World: EN4 Dinegu​

  • ERA: Oceanic Future City, Currently at Top 264 Rank, 32.4 M points,
  • Great Buildings:
    • Complete collection, raised at different levels,
    • ARC currently at level 75, soon to hit level 80
  • Attack Stats 152% / 104% (not the highest seen in EN4 but no one in EN17 is close enough).
  • Defense Stats: 63% / 486% (very rarely plundered in EN4, who could even dare to try in EN17).
  • Resources: Thousands of Goods at all eras, Millions of Coins / Supplies, Medals, Tavern fully upgraded, Tavern Silver 375K
  • Special Buildings: Plenty at city or inventory from long years playing the game. Numerous events completed / rewarded.
​
What just happen?
  • New Player just jump to Rank position #1 in a second and is ages above anyone else.
  • No one can beat him. He can dominate, alone, all GvG Maps if he wish.
Is that fair?
 
Last edited by a moderator:

DeletedUser8859

Guest
What if instead of one player moving a well developed city, a group of players do the same?
No big difference, a minority of players to dominate the new world, effortless, bringing years of accumulated resources and advantages from the city progress at another world to the new one. The rest of the players well below them doing progress the hard way.
 

DeletedUser8859

Guest
If the world would function only for "Relocated" cities, that is no player would start at BA, then a bit of the serious unbalance would be removed. But then it would be still a very competitive world designed to serve as the showdown of the Top Players of each World. Any Player daring to relocate here a non well developed High Era city is to be crushed by the rest.

Some game mechanics would require change. For example, If I relocate a OF city to the new world... which quest is the next one for me? Not to build a Stone Age Hut or Hunter right?
 

DeletedUser

Guest
will never happen

why?
the worlds should be full and then a new one starts

with all jumping to the new one the old will become more empty

and that is the opposite of what InnoGames want: full worlds

Dessire said:
when you move, your whole city will be there (including your diamonds, your inventory items, etc. you keep your ranking points in the new world.
Click to expand...
would it be possible that my city stay in the old world and I only move my inventory (buildings, goods, FP,BP) to a new world

and btw: diamonds can't be moved from one world to another
because they are already in all world :p

you keep your ranking points in the new world.
...
so if you dont care about your ranking position
Click to expand...
who finds the mistake ?

if you don't care about your ranking position you don't need to keep your ranking points :rolleyes:
 
Last edited by a moderator:

DeletedUser8859

Guest
Dessire said:
you keep your ranking points in the new world
Click to expand...

Actually, in the new world the ranking points would be recalculated based on the city just moved.

The Developers may adjust the game to get as an initial value the same points that the player had in the original world (in my example the 32.4 M from EN4), but as soon the Player start acting (Fighting, Building, Donating to Treasury, Researching, etc.) at the new world, the ranking points formula would kick in and change the ranking as programmed.
 

DeletedUser

Guest
Darrth Eugene Vader said:
Actually, in the new world the ranking points would be recalculated based on the city just moved.

The Developers may adjust the game to get as an initial value the same points that the player had in the original world (in my example the 32.4 M from EN4), but as soon the Player start acting (Fighting, Building, Donating to Treasury, Researching, etc.) at the new world, the ranking points formula would kick in and change the ranking as programmed.
Click to expand...
but if you take your complete game (battle history, goods spend, tech tree) to the new world then the result will be the same ;)

and I doubt that he wants to start from beginning in the tech tree
 

DeletedUser8859

Guest
True, the Tech Tree shall continue as it was in the original world. It would not be logical having a OF city built but researching BA tech. Research must be aligned with the unlocked / built structures at the city.

The only use I see for this is to serve as a testing ground to prove who is the real Top Player of All Worlds of a Server. Currently we can only compare stats of Players across worlds and then debate if the Top Player of the A world with XXX M points had an easy life because he/she has not faced the competition present in C World by the Top Player there who has YYY M Points. With both Top Players in the same world a few variables are removed from the equation.
 
Emberguard

Emberguard

Emperor
BetaTest03 said:
would it be possible that my city stay in the old world and I only move my inventory (buildings, goods, FP,BP) to a new world
Click to expand...
Lol that'd be even better then having the BPs for the more advanced GBs. Free advanced housing.... event buildings + upgrades.... supply buildings and cultural event buildings. My city could be set up with the tiniest footprint and just spam goods buildings without having to worry about the burden of getting the goods for advanced GBs before I reach those ages.
 

DeletedUser8406

Guest
This should be very interesting, if there is (international) worls, every player can temporary copy his city to.

In original world this city is untouched, in new world he can plays "fork" of city for some time, but he cannot relocate this forked city back.

This should be something like new beta, because it would be fine to test new features in my best city I have.
 

DeletedUser8859

Guest
If implemented, it would need a way for a player to delete the city from the "Relocated" World to be able to replace it with a new/different city from another world. Maybe with a time restriction (3 months?) for changes.

Example: Relocated City / World: ENXX
  • Player moves (actually the game produces an exact copy) the city from EN4 to the ENXX during January.
  • Later Player wants to try with the city from EN8
    • Player has to wait until April to replace the city.
    • On April, Player deletes the current city at ENXX.
    • Player relocates (creates a copy) of the city from EN8 to ENXX.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top