World Regroupement. Vote => YES or NO.

DeletedUser39261

Good Morning every body,

I'm a French Player, one of the best player... I have a proposition for you. I'm sorry my English is not so Good, but I do my best :)

I don't Know if here we have the same problem, then the French Servor. But to be honest, I think this proposition going to help every body.

You know, we know The west going dead slowly... In the reality, it's because we have so many Worlds, in 1 Servor. We are divided.
Now being Top 1 in One World, doesn't have a Signification. Why ? Because for exemple, you are Top 1 experience. You are Top 1 in One World, you have 9 Worlds in English and French servor.
You are Top 1 in just one world, in just 1 Servor, where is the signification of the top 1 ? And Now you can be top 1 Experience okey, Duels okey, Fort Battles okey. But please get delete Crafting or construction or adventure. The Top 1 lose his signification...

We need to take this Game lifely again. When we go 7-10 years ago, We see just 1-3 Worlds in one servor. I know this time, in every world we have a big alliance, big fort battle, big Towns is every where. I know the Top 1 signification, in this time if you are top 1, that's say your the Best.

We need to change the rules of migration for begining, the inventory doesn't be loose we you do a migration. This is ridiculus, when you loose all the inventory you build.
We need to Have 3-5 Worlds in one servor. If the proposition is okey, InnoGames or The West going to check the world going to migration.


The Regroupement, I think we need.

Say your opinion please, and vote YES or NO.

Have Nice Game.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Pankreas PorFavor

Well-Known Member
NO.
Majority of players plays in more than one world. This means that 60% (for example, maybe more) of players would merge their inventories (and upgrade their items) and get very powerful compared to 40% (or less) that play in only one world.
If we assume that 3 worlds with 1000 players each are merged, and about 60% of players play in all 3 worlds, you'd get one world with 1800 players where 600 players have tripled (!!!!) their inventories!
Of course, these are not the exact numbers, but I think that this would not help. The gap would be too big between those who play in more than one world and those who don't.
 

DeletedUser35533

Yes to world mergers. Yes to saving inventory and achievements. No to removing ranking categories, there being other categories does not in anyway make your number 1 exp ranking less valid. Side note: even if issues people have with it were to be hammered out, it won't happen because adding new worlds seems to be part of the formula they use to run their business.
 

DeletedUser15368

Is everyone equally active and dedicated in all servers that they play? Might end up having much better gameplay if every player is putting all their effort into the same server.

However:
it won't happen because adding new worlds seems to be part of the formula they use to run their business.
 

Harsha..

Well-Known Member
Certain players are motivated to buy the same sets on multiple world's and as a result innogames will make more money than if there's only one world.

Having said that, there are a load of dead ones like Briscoe and Dakota. Players in these world's usually suffer from the inactivity - not many battles and not many people to duel with. It would be a sound decision to close them down. But, don't expect them to agree to merging inventories.
 
Top