Selling cities

[Hiitsmeeeeeee]

Sounds like a good idea, but some people would do things others mentioned and ruin the idea. One person could win the game by buying most of the cities from others and then could easily capture everyone else in the world.

[TeerraM]

In this case a whole guild would "sell" their cities to one guy which would end up with much more than anybody else.... Bad idea

[Vasasalo]

This giving cities away has been mentioned in other threads. Way too easy to abuse it. Even easier to abuse if you could sell it. You have an entire guild join a world, sell all their cities for gold, and all then jump ship to another world. They could do this untold times till they had a endless supply of gold and dominate one world. 👎

[Goatmaster]

If you made it so that you could only give cities away and not sell them i think this would be a solution to balancing issues. If the receiving person had to have an open slot for a scholar to be trained to receive a city it would keep the game in check expansion wise and make it so that it was honestly just a time saver so that you dont have to attack people in your own guild if they decide to quit. You could even make it so that to receive a city it would get rid of 50k of each resource like if you were to purchase the scholar and claim the city that is how much it would cost you. What are your guys thoughts on this or arguments against it?

[Duke24]

This doesn't seem like a good idea to me:
First, as stated, people would abuse it.
Second, a person even with gold should not start a world and have 2-3 cities because of multiple devices.
Third, the whole point of the game is to conquer and gain a lot of cities to dominate enemies. But if the conquering was eliminated then it would just be a boring game of how many cities you can solicit before anybody else.

[Deano87]

This doesn't seem like a good idea to me:
First, as stated, people would abuse it.
Second, a person even with gold should not start a world and have 2-3 cities because of multiple devices.
Third, the whole point of the game is to conquer and gain a lot of cities to dominate enemies. But if the conquering was eliminated then it would just be a boring game of how many cities you can solicit before anybody else.

Basically how gets in older worlds really. Who's got the most cities type of thing. Too many inactives leave too many cities, I think they should just reset so than there isn't the need for capping them and the actual conquering from an enemy is the main focus.

[LordFirefall]

Definitely would like to see inactives reset to a normal size barb.

[Goatmaster]

Duke what about the suggestion I made? It would make you progress at the same rate but it would just save you a single walk time of scholars so that you could continue on conquering your enemies instead of being forced to take a city because it may fall into the wrong hands?

[Tooltip]

Goat, people our guild has eliminated have plenty of scholar slots. I do not want them to receive cities in some far of region surrounded by our enemies, just as we were finishing them off.

LordFirefall, there are too many Inactives to turn into barbs.

[LordFirefall]

Tooltip - I'm talking the inactives that already have barbed out. I think it would be much better to reset a 40k barb to 10k. You've got entire guilds who focus on capping inactives rather than actual combat.