Fewer towns and bigger map

[DeletedUser]

Seeing so many towns (red dots) in one square just looks ugly and not like real wild west. I suggest we limit number of towns per world or per square in map. Also, make founding a town much harder. More money, time and so on. When distance from one town to another is 2-3 minutes then it just looks stupid. So, lower number of towns and make greater distances between cities. It will look more realistic and plus this way rail road (one of the icond of wild west) would finally make sense.

 

[DeletedUser]

Agree

Agreed,


I will not go into detail at this time..

It is a great idea (GAME) so far.......


Aguistments will ,,,,,,,,,,and must ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,come..


death is coming

 

[DeletedUser794]

Agree, most of the towns around us have 1 or 2 members and not constructing anything.

Definitely need less towns.

 

[DeletedUser]

I completely agree
The world map definatly needs to be bigger, double the size at least
and limiting the amount of towns per k to about 10 would be good

 

[DeletedUser]

agreed, either that or sort out the map so we can see which are the real towns, or wil they go ghost when the lone player goes inactive?

 

[DeletedUser]

On the one side I say agreed. On the other side... well I can now duel their asses , close towns are just to great for duels. Plus those towns will turn into ghosttowns won't they? So the red dots will dissapear

 

[DeletedUser]

Also, number of citizens would look much more realistic. Imagine entering town with 100 or 1000 people. That would be much better then visiting biggest city in W2 numbering huge 45 citizens .

As for possible solution for smaller towns developers could perhaps include ranches wich would take up to 5 ppl and would have limited buildings. Let say, safe instead of bank and so on.
They would get another filter so ranches would not appear when filtering for towns.
Perhaps this is going to wide for the moment but if map would be bigger and towns would be fewer I beleive vast majority would be much more happier with this great game.

 

[DeletedUser]

W-2 has much less population then W-1 ... people need to take that into account when posting ...

Sure SOD will reach 41,300 first but how many of their people will be able to duel themselves out of a paper bag ?

What happens when town vs town shootouts are introduced ... heh

Morthy posted that inactives will poof after 45 days ... give it a couple months and there will be much less population/towns everywhere.

 

[DeletedUser]

W-2 has much less population then W-1 ... people need to take that into account when posting ...

Sure SOD will reach 41,300 first but how many of their people will be able to duel themselves out of a paper bag ?

What happens when town vs town shootouts are introduced ... heh

Morthy posted that inactives will poof after 45 days ... give it a couple months and there will be much less population/towns everywhere.

Even if this happen distances are too short and unrealistic as well as number of towns and citizens. IMHO reducing number of towns, enlargening map and making travel distances longer would improve game very much.
Even if those towns disapear we wil have like 5000 active towns and few K of ghost towns wich is highly unrealistic and for me personally ruins the game and feeling when playing.

 

[DeletedUser]

I agree with this entirely. The East side of the map is a joke. It's ridiculous.Theres that many little towns and people knocking about it's just over the top. Also because there are so many towns there's not a hell of a lot of interaction between players.

 

[DeletedUser]

Even if this happen distances are too short and unrealistic as well as number of towns and citizens. IMHO reducing number of towns, enlargening map and making travel distances longer would improve game very much.
Even if those towns disapear we wil have like 5000 active towns and few K of ghost towns wich is highly unrealistic and for me personally ruins the game and feeling when playing.

The 5000th highest rank town on W-1 has 535 points ... there will be many more ghost towns in the coming months. Even the 500th ranked town only has 1106 points.

The bigger towns are swallowing the smaller towns players as the bigger ones increase their residence rank.

And fyi there are 6 ranks of steed with the fastest at 150% speed (donkey is 25% speed.)

 

[DeletedUser]

Yup, and as towns turn to ghost towns they effectively make the map bigger as you have to travel further to duel (or shop) As a dueler with dueling level 5 above my level I am already starting to travel a fair bit.

W1 will be an oddity in the future regarding all the towns in the E, people will realise the advantage of founding a decent town in the W and it will be more balanced.

 

[DeletedUser]

I'm in the SE corner the farthest town in the NW corner of the map is 25 hours by walking and 18 hours by Donkey ... it sounds far now, but once the game gets going it won't seem that far.

 

[DeletedUser1105]

All of this will even itself out in time. When people first play the game, the find they can found a town, get excited, and then jump right in. These towns will die soon enough.

Give it 6 months and then have a look at the map, things will look a lot different.

And yes, World 1 should not be used as an example. There was no strategy involved in founding towns, people just did it wherever. In fact, I wouldn't go off world 2 either. Both are too new just yet.

 

[DeletedUser]

Seeing so many towns (red dots) in one square just looks ugly and not like real wild west. I suggest we limit number of towns per world or per square in map. Also, make founding a town much harder. More money, time and so on. When distance from one town to another is 2-3 minutes then it just looks stupid. So, lower number of towns and make greater distances between cities. It will look more realistic and plus this way rail road (one of the icond of wild west) would finally make sense.

I would like to post a poll about this but I think I don't have the power to do it. Anybody know how?
Thanks

 

[DeletedUser]

I agree with poster

 

[DeletedUser]

Larger towns

I think fewer towns with more people in each would be the way to go.

 

[DeletedUser]

Something along these lines needs to happen.
The right idea hasn't yet be put forward

 

[DeletedUser]

What would be cool is if a town gets to a certain size, it starts taking up more "space". Any 'found town' icons within a certain radius of it disappear and if a nearby town (in that radius) folds, it doesn't turn into a ghost town, it just disappears. this would fit with larger towns gobbling up smaller ones as a previous poster suggested. It would also create more competition with neighboring towns to become bigger faster and incorporate the other one.

The reason why I don't mind the initial number of towns on the map, is that there has to be places for new players to found a town. Surely you don't think that because y'all found this site first you should be the only ones to be able to be town founders?

In short - everyone should have the option and ability to start a town. If they don't maintain it and work on it - it gets eaten by larger, stronger, more determined towns.

(or perhaps the railroad goes through it)

 

[DeletedUser]

yes

i agree with the first poster's point and with the above point.
this above point would make it slightly civilization style which wouldn't be a bad thing at all.

as long as there is some reason for people to abandon their small towns to head to big cities. thats all thats needed, and from what some people are saying it will happen it time naturally.

one step would be to allow people to receive invites even if they're already part of a town. or is this already the case?

perhaps towns should have to grow by a certain number/percentage of points every week/month and if they dont there can be a negative effect. eg, building levels going down. this would simulate a neglected town falling into disrepair.

and i think ghost towns should disappear faster than 45 days.