New World

peadawg

Although redmatch went about it the wrong way, he isn't wrong in asking the question about new world starts. Was a time when multiple worlds were starting to give people options, now the worlds are smaller, starts farther apart, and the same alliances finish one and jump to the next. There is one "undecided" world at the moment T42, and I use quotes because red and blue will combine.

Unless the powers that be are cutting costs and only hosting on one server, any reason multiple worlds aren't starting or more worlds more often? I can't believe it takes any more compute power to host another world(s). The $$ is still the same as people are still going to buy funds, probably even more profitable if they can stay on a competitive world longer.

Go back to larger worlds, more worlds, more options.

5oce

+1

would like to see new world soon

gamerdruid

If, as you state, it's the same teams winning most worlds, how would a bigger world change that? The first few 100 players join and the world is decided! A lot of empty space and a longer time to reach the centre but no gain for players or EA as far as I can see.

I support the request for 'different' worlds with 'different' features aka options. However, we've had many threads with suggestions for these different worlds and not many have been implemented as changes.

Maybe a large Firestorm world with Malus and Forgotten attacks, a higher start (and cap) for the player and forgotten bases (as is being 'tested' on the PTE) and a much higher fortress with a lot of water, much more than any worlds so far, would be different enough!

0DBstrd

You lumped both topics in to the same thread. More worlds + bigger worlds = more time on those worlds for the super teams to compete while other worlds can be played. When you release a world every few months, these small worlds are just ghost towns. The Mara* or whatever they decide to call themselves each world have already long sense decided the fate. They then go to the next world and do the same thing. And don't say "band together and defeat them" - that works well (said no one ever). If you drop new worlds at the same time people have more options.

But I don't see anyone from the game taking most suggestions in to consideration as nothing changes. Oh well.

gamerdruid

I've not moved anything into any threads, simply responded as a sometimes player.

IrkedMax

Without "game changing" surprises these worlds get dull quickly.

batahiak

Small worlds are ok, but the frequency of them is not. I suggest releasing 2 per month, with FG attacks and with or without malus. For players who still like classic worlds, i also suggest 3 large classic worlds per year. It should be enough for everybody.

5oce

They should make the first world of 2020 though, but when??????????

tokenting

Instead of satellite codes, have nuclear launch sites instead. The reward for sitting on them is a nuclear attack option that can take out any 10 x 10 area of your choice. This will liven up wars...

gamerdruid

An interesting idea - but not really on topic.

tokenting

gamerdruid wrote: »

An interesting idea - but not really on topic.

There has been no game development for about 5 years so I wouldn't hold my breath for anything...

manfrommars1

I agree we need more worlds starting at same time then we have choice of world
and lets get a date for when a new one is starting this year bored of waiting

jbl3ck

stop begging for fresh starts...
if u sucked on the current server, u'll most likely suck on the next one too.

better start asking for a private server... u'll definitely win there!

the game isn't a sprint... it's almost a marathon.

u're like those people who think that the response to a real world crisis is printing more bills.

XXXDEATHDEALER6x

do one with no scripts an no upgrades..change pvp back to original.an let noobs .feel the true power.oldschool