Server Merge world types

    Hi.


    I was looking at the recent announcement about the server merges, and I was wondering, can the community vote on the server types? Or at least can they be changed?


    For the worlds that get 4 server types, there are two that lean towards builders and 2 that lean towards fighters.


    But worlds that only get 2 servers, both lean towards builders.


    ====

    Setting 1:

    Production of Wood and Marble will be 25% higher than normal. Buildings are built 25% faster than normal. Trade Ships are 25% faster than normal.


    Setting 2:

    Production of Wood, Marble and Wine are 10% higher than normal. Buildings are constructed 10% faster than normal. Trade Ships are 25% faster than normal. Scientists create 50% more research points.

    ====

    ====

    Setting 1:

    Production of Wood, Wine and Marble will be 25% higher than normal. Buildings are built 25% faster than normal. Trade Ships are 25% faster than normal. Scientists create 50% more research points. Troops and ships are built 25% slower. Troop units cost twice as much to produce.


    Setting 2:

    Production of Wood, Wine and Marble will be 10% higher than normal. Trade Ships are 35% faster than normal. Scientists create 75% more research points. Troops and ships are built 10% faster.


    Setting 3:

    Production of wine is 35% higher than normal. Trade Ships are 35% faster than normal. Scientists create 50% more research points. Troops and ships are built 25% faster.


    Setting 4:

    Production of Wine is 50% higher than normal. Trade Ships are 35% faster than normal. Scientists create 75% more research points. Troops and ships are built 50% faster. Land units are 25% cheaper to build.

    ====


    This seems very unfair to the fighter players.


    Please fix this.


    A simple solution might be to just swap setting #2 of the 2-world options and setting #2 or #3 of the 4-world options.

    It would give the 4-world group to get another building-discount option, and it gives the 2-world group at least somewhat of a combat world option.


    Whatever you do, please fix this.

    Thank you.

    I don't mean to disappoint you, but there's no way they'll "fix" any of this. Clearly GF staff have thought long and hard over it. Some accounts and/or servers will win, others will lose. People in different time zones will have disadvantages in setting up and possibly getting the CTs they want. All this is inevitable.


    For most accounts, it seems to me they will produce more goods, which can be traded in the Posts or via Traders to compensate for (relative) underproduction of other types of luxuries. For example, my 2nd account, a Godly Protection one, will be hit hard for 18 months or so, but I'll adjust and build it up again. And I'm certain that every account will have issues of some sort.

    Not the biggest fan of the bonuses honestly, I think all builders are going to flock into the first option with the largest bonuses, which is going to make it seriously crowded. It's going to be a huge scramble trying to find marble with hepas before they all get taken.


    I have 93 cities in total, not really looking forward to this.

    Yeah, sadly, the only real option for builders in the 4 pack is option 1.


    I have 92 cities to settle, too, I am also not looking forward to this.


    I was on a nice, low conflict server, too, which was great to build on.

    Edited once, last by User12996 ().

    Well, if #1 is a builder's choice, at least it will be low conflict for your purposes too.


    As my time zone is 6 hours behind CET, if you are right about it being crowded, I personally may well lose out. That's life!

    Not necessarily. It can easily become high conflict because Ikariam simply has a lack of good islands. Builders likely want 1-2 crystal/sulfur, Ceiling(towns/3) wine, and the rest marble so there's a lot more pressure on marble islands than crystal/sulfur. Especially in a server with settings like #1 where it's wood/marble/wine heavy.


    Regardless, the best server is not determined by buffs, but by a lack of players.


    The good news is I can always try server #1, see how I like it, and if I don't like it make an alt on server 2, 3, 4 and see if those are better/worse. Where I'm at now, I wasn't worried about doing that and as there was only one other player near me, I could expand freely.


    When I rejoined, I heard that Ikariam had stopped closing old servers and I was glad to hear that.


    The most disappointing part to me is that US-Kerberos is closing. It had the unique 2x research 1/2 science cost that was unlike any other buffs.

    Edited once, last by User12996 ().

    Honestly, I'm likely going with server 2, though I really wish the 10% troop build time was 15% reduced building time instead. I'm not sure why the three servers are all about faster troop building time.


    I just skimmed through Zephyros, which is the current EN build server, and it's already crammed full to the brim so you're going to have everyone there competing with everyone else for the best build spots and it's already a full server. Herakles, where I'm at, is at least a compromise, though I had considered GYing to a more empty server in another language, I just wasn't sure how the language rules worked. For example, if I go to an Italian server, would I get in trouble if I accidentally messaged someone in English?


    What I'm most likely going to do is have to wait until the dust settles and GY from en to a less populated other language setting #1, but I'll have to do a lot of scouting first because empty servers are always the best.

    I can understand that you are all looking at this from the POV of the 4-setting world choices.


    But the .us servers are only getting TWO choices.


    And neither one of those choices does anything in regards to troops, where ALL FOUR options for the 4-settings world choices affect troops in one way or other.


    I don't think that's fair to combat-related players.


    I don't know what went into the choices. It seems like they finalized on six choices and sent 2 to one group and 4 to the other.


    All I'm suggesting is to allow the .us servers at least one of those troop-affecting options.


    swapping #2 of the one, for #2 or #3 of the other, seem the least disruptive way to do this. Or maybe just add a 3rd option.


    Or how about this: just give .us all 6 options! - and once the mergers are done, announce that the lowest 4 populated .us servers will merge to the 2 most populated. Yes, it would be some extra work, but it just seems more fair than what's being presented.


    Or how about this? Allow .us accounts to merge directly to the .en servers if they want (and vice versa). .en is getting the 4-setting options and .us is getting the 2-setting world options. Giving all the .us and .en players the choice to join any of the 6 options, would be another way to determine the popularity of the options and to allow players to benefit from their most preferred play style.

    Skyhawk, my mistake. I always think you're on en Alpha.


    It definitely is very strange that not only do we get a merge, but we also get a merge with such unusual options. There's six unique options.


    It's also really strange that the 4 way split has more buffs than the 2 way split.


    You think they would've made 4 choices and picked the two most extreme differences for the 2 way split.


    It definitely seems like setting 2 from the two way split should be swapped with setting 2 from the 4 way split.

    Quote from DogEnds

    Why would anyone choose #3, which is in no way superior to #4 in any bonus?

    It's almost as if #3 was made just to be the reserve league for players that don't get into good spots on #4.


    With all the different combinations of bonuses possible and already represented, it's silly to waste one potential slot to an objectively worse copy.


    I would even somewhat argue that option #2, being the sort of "middle of the road" that it is, could also be changed entirely along with #3.


    #1 sports the builder-type and #4 the fighter-type. #2 appears to be somewhere in-between and #3 has nothing going for it.


    It would've been interesting to have, for example, a sulphur bonus on #2 or, say, a crystal+wood bonus on #3.

    Whatever it is that would make them unique, at least...

    Remember your ABC's in gaming -


    Always Be Cheatin' :closedthread:


    substitute the settings from the 2-world options for settings #1 and #3 from the 4-world options and I think you get the 4 best/most varied options. And none of them would give negatives then either.


    ====

    Setting 1: (old setting #1)

    Production of Wood and Marble will be 25% higher than normal. Buildings are built 25% faster than normal. Trade Ships are 25% faster than normal.


    Setting 2:

    Production of Wood, Wine and Marble will be 10% higher than normal. Trade Ships are 35% faster than normal. Scientists create 75% more research points. Troops and ships are built 10% faster.


    Setting 3: (old setting #2)

    Production of Wood, Marble and Wine are 10% higher than normal. Buildings are constructed 10% faster than normal. Trade Ships are 25% faster than normal. Scientists create 50% more research points.


    Setting 4:

    Production of Wine is 50% higher than normal. Trade Ships are 35% faster than normal. Scientists create 75% more research points. Troops and ships are built 50% faster. Land units are 25% cheaper to build.

    ====


    I think people would likely like this. And then give the 2-setting choice worlds options #1 and #2 of these.

    I honestly think a lot of the choices we're given were done intentionally for the decoy effect. Basically, they gave us 2 or 4 options with the idea that most players would pick 1 option a lot more frequently than the others.

    I have a question about option 2, does the research bonus affect experiments or just researcher gained research?


    I get all my research thru experiments these days.

    Diplomat for Raging Kings [RK] - Eurydike (US)

    ya that's what I figured, Probably go with option 1 then unless the alliance decides otherwise.


    btw anyone know if we'll spawn in our current island spots (assuming there is room) or are your towns all randomly placed and you have to warp them?

    I know we're getting warps but if I spawn on my current islands I might be able to save the warps for later.

    Diplomat for Raging Kings [RK] - Eurydike (US)

    I'm not sure and I'd love to know how the merge process actually works. Is it the same as picking from GY?


    I'd assume you'd spawn in your current location, given space. I can't recall what happened when I GY'd other accounts because I simply warped them to where I wanted them to be.

    does anyone know the exact time the merger will open for US?

    I see 8/14 but what time zone are they using? game time? and if so what time will it start 0 hour?


    I want to be up and on and ready for the land rush.

    Diplomat for Raging Kings [RK] - Eurydike (US)

    I have a curiosity: WHY some merges get way more bonuses than others?

    For example, the 4-server merge gets way more and attractive bonuses than the 2-server merge. This is decided based on WHAT?