New world

Good evening,

I would like the next world to be a Fast World with Domination System... We want some fights because Sandbox 14 hasn't fun...


Also I recommend that you should fix the capacity of the alliances again and do it 40 or 50....Its much more effective and better....

Greetings,
UltimateGR
 

Arci

Community Manager
Grepolis Team
Good evening,

I would like the next world to be a Fast World with Domination System... We want some fights because Sandbox 14 hasn't fun...


Also I recommend that you should fix the capacity of the alliances again and do it 40 or 50....Its much more effective and better....

Greetings,
UltimateGR

3x isn't actually slow :p

Speaking of alliance numbers, Sandbox 14 has 35 as max capacity and the idea was to avoid having all players under the same alliance. I would see no problem in raising it again to 40 or 50 for the next world, but how do you think this will have benefits?


Do Sandbox/beta worlds appear at the same time than worlds in other communities?
No, beta has a different pace when opening worlds.
 
It's Domination... Is it better to create another one alliance for 5 players or to keep them in one alliance all of them?

I don't have problem with the capacity, but I think it's more efficient to do it again 40...

For instance, in Sandbox 13 we created 3 alliances because of the capacity, instead of two... And this fact destroyed our game, because the main alliance didn't know the inactivity situation in the other two...
 

Arci

Community Manager
Grepolis Team
That's exactly why the alliance limit is low. If an alliance can hold 80 players for example, most likely all the active players will go in that alliance and there is literally no chance to fight against them.

Keeping a low limit makes developing huge alliances harder, giving them less power (at least on a management level) against a smaller one.
 
For instance, in Sandbox 13 we created 3 alliances because of the capacity, instead of two... And this fact destroyed our game, because the main alliance didn't know the inactivity situation in the other two...

Well, that´s what shared leader tabs in the alliance forum are for. And you know quite well that it was not the number of alliances that "destroyed our game" but the number of quitting members combined with (and maybe caused by) the plague of (hostile) low morale accounts used for sieges.
 
Well, that´s what shared leader tabs in the alliance forum are for. And you know quite well that it was not the number of alliances that "destroyed our game" but the number of quitting members combined with (and maybe caused by) the plague of (hostile) low morale accounts used for sieges.

You don't know if the other players will open the alliance forum....Also, that is inactivity not quiting... They quited because there was much inactivity... That's the problem in Sandbox 14 too... There is much inactivity but we don't quit yet.. :)
 
It's just a thought I just had because @Arci says it's not to be dismissed. What do you think about starting in a dominant world with an alliance size of 5 players? A nice size to start with some real Grepo friends and too small to get only the biggest players. Should extend running time and fun, I guess, don't it?
 
Last edited:
It's just a thought I just had because @Arci says it's not to be dismissed. What do you think about starting in a dominant world with an alliance size of 5 players? A nice size to start with some real Grepo friends and too small to get only the biggest players. Should extend running time and fun, I guess, don't it?


It's a good idea... It's boring to play the same again again... New game modes will be interesting...
 
we need a new revolt world with ww mode and a speed of 5 we have been low on revolt worlds lately after sandbox 1 5 and 8 closed
 

zutetrezut

Erinys
We are expecting a normal world (not casual) and fast, with revolt.

The idea of Mim le Fay about the size of the alliances is good ... but 5 players is very little ... why not around 10.
 

bibor215

Divine Envoy
a new x6 conquest with 6 or 8h time conquest could be a good idea to have a more activ and competitive server, in general all the sandbox servers quickly have one dominant team from far, but look at the x6 from past year, lot of teams came on from all countries and it has been better than the others last sandbox
 
a new x6 conquest with 6 or 8h time conquest could be a good idea to have a more activ and competitive server, in general all the sandbox servers quickly have one dominant team from far, but look at the x6 from past year, lot of teams came on from all countries and it has been better than the others last sandbox


Looks normal that after a point someone is on the top of the rank and the rest below .... that is why we have the ranking ... to have a winner and a no winner......
And this happenes to all servers and not just the sandbox.
What you are missing is not only this fact (that at a point there is a winner) but also thet sandboxes are testing servers... to test!!!! If you want competitive servers (wher you think that you can do something) then go to a normal server and play....
but... oups.. I forgot... there you do not get free gold every month so as you provide feedback on game mechanisms and bugs..... there you have to pay for the gold.....
So please stop crying because as long as you do not know how this war game is played... sandbox or not you wiull still be crying that someone else is winning.... And yes... after 10 years around I have seen many people crying for this very thing.... "make new server because I keep loosing as I .... "

And yes.. this is my opinion about new servers with this excuse. New servers are supposed to be created to test new things... new end gamnes... new features... not to just test the speed.
If you want a fast server of a server ofg a specific speed I am sure you can find one either on your local market or on the en.


Thanks.

p.s. quotation was not personal but the last one crying for a new server with different speed because the requestor is not aware of how to play the game!!
 
Top