I'd be furious to find myself moved from my similar map brothers and sisters. You might want to take a page from Helya's book, just sayin', because this is clearly not working correctly even yet.
Yes - quite. And before deviating off into one of my essays (you all knew I couldn't
really just shut up forever, didn't you?!), may I say that in my view it's already bad enough that the EN Servers are used by InnoGames, at will, as some kind of 'post-Beta but pre-full release' testing environment, without even having the courtesy to ask the EN players whether we want to act as informal additional testers or not (an opt-out is certainly possible and should be offered on any live server), but the current situation is even more bizarre and less acceptable. I've never come across any other game (with more than one in-game world) which applies game changes and updates
inconsistently across its live servers/worlds.
@CrazyWizard The announcement from Helya on the US Forum is strictly for the US only. Our moves are going ahead as planned.
@Herodite @Silmaril @Solanix @anonglitch - some, any, or all of you, please - this is not the first time that US Server-based Forum commentators have objected to an imminent game update, and their Community Manager has intervened with InnoGames' management to obtain,
only for those players, a delay in the proposed incoming change(s). Although I suspect that I already know the answer to this question, I would formally like to ask:
Why are EN Server-based players treated differently and less favourably? Your help in asking InnoGames this question will be much appreciated.
Of course once the move has occurred, all settings should revert back to those chosen prior to the move.
This is a mistake, and will only lead not only to much confusion amongst players, but also, more crucially, to the same movement-related problems as we currently see starting up all over again. Once having taken the plunge, and realised that the previous incremental Map movement system simply does not work (and there is ample evidence that it does little but occasionally disrupt small areas of the Map in return for few lasting benefits), the 'forced move' system should become the ONLY move system - although I would suggest that a highly visible, sustained, and widespread information campaign FIRST be undertaken, via all means at InnoGames' disposal (Forums, Wiki [prominently stated therein], email, in-game Announcements, and Social Media if you must) to efficiently inform ALL players that such a large change is imminent, before going ahead and moving around players who presently remain, due to the lack of advance warning at this time, under the illusion that the ability to set one's City to 'not move' still remains valid. It goes without saying that the always-controversial ability to set one's City to 'not move' (which does not even exist in the mobile client, which is, of course, Inno's favoured platform) should simultaneously be removed - again, with
adequate advance notice of this change given to all players.
OK, now that I've got all that off my chest - bring on the essay (this is your cue to skip to the next post, all those who hate walls-o-text)...!
* * * * * * * *
The current changes and moves you're seeing are leading up to the forced move you will see on the 28th and 29th. This move is to ensure that no one gets left behind. Whilst it sounds drastic this will, in the long run, ensure that Active Cities are in the best position possible for Trades and Neighbourly Help.
The lack of clear, repeated and long-term advance warning notwithstanding (although this will, as others have pointed out, certainly lead to complaints from those players - and they will be many - who remain unaware of the fact that they will be moved regardless of their in-game settings), I can see why InnoGames have finally decided to make a 'forced move' of this type. Such would seem to be the only way to efficiently and expediently 'gather up' and move closer together,
en masse, ALL of the established and active Cities on any given Server, in the hope of reducing the need for repeated smaller-scale and less efficient moves in future.
That said, and based on my own experience of the drop-out rate of early players in this game, I personally would NOT include in the forthcoming forced move any City below Chapter III, or perhaps even Chapter V, no matter how apparently active it may be, in order to avoid the inevitability of the majority of those pre-Guest Race Cities being abandoned later, whether or not they are moved to a better Map position - which would, of course, just lead to the same old problem of lots of small[er], dead Cities in amongst the newly moved still-active ones... which would then necessitate another 'forced move' of actives and removal of inactives... and so on, and so forth. I have seen many Map moves in my 3½ years or so of playing Elvenar, on two different Servers (one newer, one older), and every single time new[er] Cities below the Guest Race stage are moved (or allowed to start up?) in amongst older and more established Cities, within a short time the very large majority of them become abandoned, so I do hope that those carrying out the move will be realistic about the very high chance of Cities being abandoned in their early stages, rather than [unwisely] optimistic that simply mixing new[er] Cities in with older active Cities will prevent City abandonment - it never has, it doesn't now, and it never will.
There are, of course, reasons for this being the case, and for the sake of completeness, I'll waffle on about the most obvious one(s) a bit here (who'd have thought I'd do that...). The only way to permanently address Elvenar's very high player drop-out rate would be (a) to make the game's early stages MUCH faster and more interesting to play
*, and (b) to finally admit that the game's fundamental and critically serious flaw is the very existence of the strange and counter-intuitive Boosted Goods system. It is the Boosted Goods system - not least the fact that one cannot Trade one's pre-Sentient Goods Server-wide (another mysterious decision without any apparent benefits) - which causes almost all of the [unnecessary and preventable] Trading-related woes afflicting Cities both large and small, leading not only to the early death of the many small[er] Cities, but also to the many and various Trading imbalances which are often bemoaned by even large Cities. So, were I the god of Elvenar, I would just bite the bullet - regardless of additional coding requirements (which someone else will probably mention, if I don't do it myself!) - and remove the Boosted Goods system entirely, in favour of a normal and far more sensible system of allowing players to produce, at their own choice and without penalty or benefit, some, any, or all of the game's Goods, and then Trade them Server-wide, as is the case in every other Trade-involving game I have ever played.
There is actually no need to move any player anywhere at all - if only Trade wasn't limited to only the few surrounding 'discovered' Cities.
* Having started a new Beta City recently, I can confidently state that I would find its very slow early development and more or less complete lack of anything to do during the first couple of weeks [or longer, if one plays in a non-hardcore manner] very off-putting if I were a real new player, and I personally wouldn't continue with such a very slow, overly time-gated, intentionally 'railroaded', and therefore frankly tedious game, not wishing to spend what would very obviously be weeks of my time advancing the City merely to the point where it can win more than one or two battles or post more than a few tiny Trades per day, for example, or research more than one technology every two or more days... and so on. And yes, I know: "But Elvenar is a game of patience and waiting!"... well, there's patience and waiting, yes, but then there's intentional delay by design, and the former doesn't - and should not need to - counter the latter, which simply shouldn't exist in any game which wants to keep, long-term, a decent percentage of its starting players.
When one considers it, why
should a fantasy City, or indeed any other type of City, in any building/trading game - which should be, one would hope, an easy and enjoyable pastime, not one which is artificially limited and thus difficult/annoying to 'manage' - be pressured, via the game's inherent structure, into producing [without major penalties] only a small sub-set of the possible Trade Goods which exist in the game? Where is the fun in that, and why was it ever considered a good idea? It makes no sense, it adds no joy to the game (in fact, it limits the player's choices, and thus only makes the game more dull), and it directly or indirectly causes most of the game's other serious problems. But this subject is larger than the scope of this particular thread, of course - I just thought I should mention it, since it's such an obvious solution - in fact, it's the only full and permanent solution, whether or not it would involve a lot of re-coding. I play games which have made greater changes than this in the name of longevity and/or correcting a gnawing, fundamental problem before the game eventually founders entirely upon it. Short-term pain for long-term gain, and all that, and financially speaking, InnoGames is hardly lacking a few quid profits-wise to pay for some progammer overtime, as those of us who read the gaming trade press will be well aware!