Yep, once every 2 months approximately. Hits right in the feels when you want to start playing again and the most recent server was released just over two weeks ago
Hi all, returning veteran, haven't played in years. I was looking to get back into it, but wanted to start in a fresh world with a chance to rush the center. Any details on when the next world will begin? I would settle for EU/NA, or other.
If you look at the previous 20 posts asking about a new world, you will see that the devs publish a date a week before the world starts. Worlds release approximately every two months and the last one was released in march. you do the maths.
All posts like this do is turn gamerdruid into a robot.
@Buddy1570 if you really are as new to this game as your account suggests then you might think its a stupid rule. However if you are more experienced you will come to realise the game is like all other services online its supply on demand. Currently players are involved in competing on other servers. The funding of them servers tells EA that all are busy at moment. When that funding depletes then EA will know there is demand for a new server and will graciously supply us with a new challenge. That cycle takes approximately 2 months. 🤡
I've been seeing 'I'll not fund' type posts for years, yet the game continues.
Whilst I agree that it is difficult to accept that the best teams win, the problem, in my eyes, is that the 'World Championship' type worlds don't have a strict enough entry requirements and neither do veteran worlds. After 400 or more worlds there are simply too many players qualifying for those worlds. There isn't any 'happy medium' between the best players winning all the time (best funded, best skilled, best at cheating - take your pick) and those that play for fun with a little funding available.
As has been discussed many, many times here the 'problem' is "what comes after a fortress kill?" and no sensible, acceptable offering has been made.
A new world may come along in May according to the 'schedule' outlined by others. Will it be Forgotten Attacks, Morale or some other option - we'll only know when it is announced!
I am not an employee of EA/Envision. The views expressed are my own!
I've been seeing 'I'll not fund' type posts for years, yet the game continues.
Whilst I agree that it is difficult to accept that the best teams win, the problem, in my eyes, is that the 'World Championship' type worlds don't have a strict enough entry requirements and neither do veteran worlds. After 400 or more worlds there are simply too many players qualifying for those worlds. There isn't any 'happy medium' between the best players winning all the time (best funded, best skilled, best at cheating - take your pick) and those that play for fun with a little funding available.
As has been discussed many, many times here the 'problem' is "what comes after a fortress kill?" and no sensible, acceptable offering has been made.
A new world may come along in May according to the 'schedule' outlined by others. Will it be Forgotten Attacks, Morale or some other option - we'll only know when it is announced!
You know what would be really interesting? If a veteran world had a signup cost. Hear me out.
It's reasonably well known that most veteran players buy the command point and repair time caps. In fact, after playing a few words and beating the fortress once, I'd be inclined to say that they are necessary.
After asking around the few times I've played, the general consensus seems to be the monthly cp increase of 200cp (899TA) and +48 hours repair time (2299). For games lasting 6 months and 12 months, the capacity costs would be ~$25 (19188 TA) and ~$50 (38376 TA)
So instead of having a funding model for a veteran server where people are going to buy the caps anyway, why not have an upfront cost, removing the ability to buy extra caps and packages but putting everyone on an even playing field.
I don't disagree with you but... EA have set the funding model and no-one reading this will be able to change it. As far as I know, about the only thing the developers can't change about the game is the funding model.
I am not an employee of EA/Envision. The views expressed are my own!
Replies
> Waiting for Next world
+++++++++++new world with FA+++++++++++++++PLEASE
All posts like this do is turn gamerdruid into a robot.
Whilst I agree that it is difficult to accept that the best teams win, the problem, in my eyes, is that the 'World Championship' type worlds don't have a strict enough entry requirements and neither do veteran worlds. After 400 or more worlds there are simply too many players qualifying for those worlds. There isn't any 'happy medium' between the best players winning all the time (best funded, best skilled, best at cheating - take your pick) and those that play for fun with a little funding available.
As has been discussed many, many times here the 'problem' is "what comes after a fortress kill?" and no sensible, acceptable offering has been made.
A new world may come along in May according to the 'schedule' outlined by others. Will it be Forgotten Attacks, Morale or some other option - we'll only know when it is announced!
You know what would be really interesting? If a veteran world had a signup cost. Hear me out.
It's reasonably well known that most veteran players buy the command point and repair time caps. In fact, after playing a few words and beating the fortress once, I'd be inclined to say that they are necessary.
After asking around the few times I've played, the general consensus seems to be the monthly cp increase of 200cp (899TA) and +48 hours repair time (2299). For games lasting 6 months and 12 months, the capacity costs would be ~$25 (19188 TA) and ~$50 (38376 TA)
So instead of having a funding model for a veteran server where people are going to buy the caps anyway, why not have an upfront cost, removing the ability to buy extra caps and packages but putting everyone on an even playing field.