Cities around me

[DeletedUser]

I've notice that there are a lot of the cities around mine that have 1 res or maybe 1 res and 1 goods and builder. A nd they are doing squat but ensuring that if I want to scout as I go out further the costs of scouting gets more costly. In some ways if I rationalize this, for you the owners its more advantageous as we spend more coins, but for each of us, that cost slows us down to a degree. Not complaining just observing a trend is all.

Does once a new member join, do they replace the idle cities and get renamed / or do they stay the way they are currently

Wren

 

[DeletedUser]

I think it's been about three or four months since the inactive players in my range were deleted, which they are supposed to be after a month of inactivity. Once they are removed, it can take a while to have the empty spaces filled in with new players.

 

[Deleted User - 107391]

I've notice that there are a lot of the cities ... aren't doing squat but ensuring that if I want to scout as I go out further the costs of scouting gets more costly. ...

Does once a new member join, do they replace the idle cities and get renamed / or do they stay the way they are currently

I think it's been about three or four months since the inactive players in my range were deleted, which they are supposed to be after a month of inactivity. Once they are removed, it can take a while to have the empty spaces filled in with new players.

Here's the problem - when Inno removed large tracts of inactive players it caused a huge problem because you couldn't 'reap' from the barren territory. At least you can 'donate' to ghost towns and get your reward. But if they are deleted, you're living in desert.

So now they remove only a few at a time. Right now, I have only two 'deserts' in my map. I've had as many as 20. When you need money, you'll be glad of the ghost towns.

It just isn't possible to keep you surrounded by active players. The turnover rate is too high.

 

[DeletedUser]

So now they remove only a few at a time. Right now, I have only two 'deserts' in my map. I've had as many as 20. When you need money, you'll be glad of the ghost towns.

I finally had a single city removed! I would like the gradual approach more if we were informed that that was the case, and they did so regularly. The return for providing neighborly aid is nigh on necessary for me to keep up enough coin at this point, so, yes, deleting them all would hurt.

 

[DeletedUser43]

It just isn't possible to keep you surrounded by active players. The turnover rate is too high.

Sure it is.
Make the world smaller until you have enough players to support a larger world.
Lower the turnover rate (make the game better)
Let players delete cities

You can also make it so it doesn't matter so much:
Change the rules of the game a bit:
eliminate the trader fees so it doesn't matter if a person is that close to you
Make the neighborly help bonus dependent on your actions, not your neighbors..so if you visit them two days in a row, you get the supplies bonus

 

[DeletedUser511]

Yeah and stop making more servers.

 

[Deleted User - 107391]

Sure it is.
Make the world smaller until you have enough players to support a larger world.
Lower the turnover rate (make the game better)
Let players delete cities

You can also make it so it doesn't matter so much:
Change the rules of the game a bit:
eliminate the trader fees so it doesn't matter if a person is that close to you
Make the neighborly help bonus dependent on your actions, not your neighbors..so if you visit them two days in a row, you get the supplies bonus

Ah yes. All true.

 

[DeletedUser854]

I agree! I've counted more than 30 cities less around mine. Why we are paying the price for the inactive players? To explore an conquer all those tiles took me a lot of time and resources and I was taking just a few coins and resources back from them. Please put them back until you have people to fill those holes. Thanks.

 

[DeletedUser723]

I have suggested that they leave ghosts, flagged as ghosts, until a new player signs in, then the new player gets that city. So far there has been no response.

 

[DeletedUser1452]

I have suggested that they leave ghosts, flagged as ghosts, until a new player signs in, then the new player gets that city. So far there has been no response.

That's a really great idea since there's been a lot eliminated lately and it's way too much in my opinion. I just visited my 4th world and well over 20 were just eliminated leaving me with almost nothing around me to gain any benefits from. Also to add to this what's being eliminated does not include all inactive players. For example if someone starts a main hall upgrade and they never return so it's completed the city is still there which means we get nothing from the main hall nor does it get eliminated so it's a completely dead city. It appears that if there's a build in progress it must show up as an active player.

 

[Deleted User - 107391]

... if someone starts a main hall upgrade and they never return so it's completed the city is still there which means we get nothing from the main hall nor does it get eliminated so it's a completely dead city. It appears that if there's a build in progress it must show up as an active player.

Sucks. I hadn't realized that. I have a couple of those on my map.