...Really make little sense to me. Not that the arguments put forth don't make constructive and valid points, but that it exacerbates the current problems with the server.

The admins have a lot on their plate for sure, and right now they are focused on working out the coding for launching a facebook application. Their logic is sound in their priorities. That being said, relevant changes to the FFA server have largely dropped to the bottom of a long list.

The control screen in its current state is a mess. It is impossible to place orders on multiple countries or check your tech levels on multiple countries without logging into each one individually. Additionally you can not auto-upload advisor pages or your own market ops from the control screen.

I only touched on the basic problems that are holding back more players from the server in terms of time obligations. Adding 32 countries at this point would only encourage people to devote a larger amount of time to the server. For players like myself, and a great deal of cross-over players the server has managed to pick up in the past several resets, this extra time is impossilbe to give. Now you can say that we could continue to play 16 countries, but that only goes to strengthen the position of people who have tons of time to waste here. If you are willing to dedicate a lot of time, you already have a fundamental advantage. I see no point in doubling it as the game currently exists.

Rather than pushing for a change in the number of countries, at a point in time where it multiplies redundancy and disadvantage to at least half the players on the server, why not push for the changes that would make this game easier to play. More players would really fulfill the desires of those players wanting more countries on the server; more land, more countries, more alliances.

lower the amount to 5 countries, or 2.. that'll be awesome :-D make the clan sizes smaller as to not scare people into not playing :-D lower the country limit

my only thought is it will never happen so why waste your time discussing it.

I used to run 900 countries on dial up alright... so i'm in the omg yay for unlimited countries.

how ever

A. the servers that takes is ridiculously expensive
B. cheating runs rampant like woah
C. NBK would have like 5 million countries they are on 24-7
D. people with alot of time on their hands can push agendas
E. if most people that are pro as many as they want had to start playing x amount of countries they would quickly realize their countries would be worse/ their play time would be vastly extensive/ they would burn out from the game/
F. This game would fall to basement trolls with nothing better going on in their life.
G. Clans would be useless for the most part (most would play in multiple tags and what not spying would run rampent) just like the old days.

It's like that ex girlfriend that you remember was simply amazing in every way. You meet her now a days and realize she isn't that great/hot/nice etc. and you are glad you didn't bite that bullet.


Go 16 country limit!

@aponic - Last I checked, players are allowed to run as many countries as they like up to the limit (currently 16).

Raising that limit would not require you to run more countries, just give you the opportunity to if you'd like. I really don't see much of a difference between running 16 and 20, for example. Running 4 additional countries should take you a whopping 10 minutes.



As per Billyjoe's assertions - raising the country limit wouldn't add a significant load to the servers, and NO those servers are not incredibly expensive, especially when you take ad revenue generated by additional clicks for those extra countries into consideration.

Also, more countries != more cheating if rule sets are defined correctly. The admins have defined a very good set of policies for country creation, and have done everything in their ability to keep cheating to a minimum. Giving a cheater more countries/account to fight non-cheaters with more countries/account will not increase or decrease the impact of cheating. Never has, never will.

People with more time to waste on their hands already push agendas on those who don't - more countries would not change this. This is news to you???

This game is already run by basement trolls with too much time on their hands. Again, this is news to you?????

Clans would be nothing more than an expanded versions of their current forms - how would more countries change this? Politics are politics no matter how many soldiers you got to back you up.

nowie your gonna tell me it wouldnt give someone an advantage to be able to run more countries cause they have the time? of course you would have tags with less players but more countries that would be able to wipe out tags with more players but less countries because youve got people who dont have the time or will to run hundreds of countries.

bottom line is unlimited countries WOULD equal a bot problem.

Seems to me that is the current situation as well. Lots of folks don't use the 16 limit because of time constraints, and do just fine.

A batch of 4 Theo/Techers, for example, is just as likely as someone running 4 or 5 batches of Theo/Techers to have a good finish, assuming they're not self-farming....which is an entirely separate discussion, imo.

Bots already exist for this game - I still maintain that their impact isn't exponential to how many countries you are able to run, as A. the bot runner would be attacking more countries, and B. running a bot with multiple accounts is the advantage in and of itself, not how many countries each account holds.

I would say 16 limit cap should stay. I'm already having trouble running 16 in a war. Yes I could run less countries, but then I'm giving you advantage, which would lead me to quit. I wouldn't be interested in playing a game at a disadvantage. Instead of running 900 countires, get better at running 16. Or if you just raised cap to lets say 32. I think you would actually lose people, not gain people.

I THINK THERE SHOULD BE A 3000 COUNTRY MINIMUM...DEBATE

Yay, another closed thread revisited.

I dunno if the limit should stay the same or be changed, honestly. I just don't agree with a lot of the nay-saying that's going on about it - I'm sure there's pro's and con's to either or, I just haven't seen any relevant arguments for not raising it yet.

I will say this. I am for unlimited FFA, only if you are sure it will increase people playing the game. I personally wouldn't play on a unlimited FFA, but I would prefer to see the game grow.

I personally don't have to play these 16 (with work and all)
I must lose about 100 turns a set (spread across all my countries) maybe even more, I'm not sure. And that's not taking into account.................WAR

There's NO WAY, I could find the time to play more countries. My work schedule is just wayyyy tooo hectic.

5 at the most :-P

My whole argument is that the focus here should not be on the number of countries if you want to improve this server. It should be on adding tools tot he control screen to stream line playing in order to save time. Try re-reading now3p.

I agree aponic, making things more streamlined would be awesome. then maybe raising the limit would be more reasonable.

nowp i'm not really going to get into it. but i remember servers getting awfully crowded and slow when FFA had like 50k countries or what ever it was up to in its heyday. and i'm pretty sure server space isn't free.

and more countries would surely lead to more cheating if nothing else but exponential growth.

but what ever maybe i'm off base. none the less i don't think the limit is going to get lifted anytime soon and i certainly prefer limiting to 16.

yeah, the game would start to lag when ffa got over like 45k countries. but then again mehul also had a server that was built in 1989

i love bots program :P