That's going to be the better option, I think. Many people simply do not enjoy forts at all, and from an organized wb perspective they often cause problems. Not all of your people make it in, so now you have to split up, and then reform later. It is a hassle for something a lot of people simply do not enjoy. We'd rather go to the side zone and fight there. Invader be damned.Secrets wrote: ↑Sat Jun 22, 2019 2:19 amThe opposite could happen as well. The goal with this is to make it less able to be 'gamed' by min/maxers.drmordread wrote: ↑Sat Jun 22, 2019 12:44 am One zone at a time...
So a campaign can be started in EU prime but only benefit USA prime (or later) players because they will finish it.
Not really fair to any players starting a campaign. They will never get rewards.
One thing that may change in the near future, if this system doesn't work out, is T2/T3 not being required to start T4 and opening T2/T3 zones while a fort or city is in progress.
If we could get a fresh T2/T3 zone when a fort opens, it would be great.
It kind of feels you are funneling people into forts, while many simply dislike them from a design or performance standpoint.
Also I hate saying it but constant crossbreeding leaves a bad taste in peoples mouths. Having the population fluctuate 50-60 after a big wipe is not fun, and encouraging people to do it to balance the population is very unrealistic. People don't swap to the underdog side. They go from the losing side to the winning side to get the maximum gain with the minimal effort. Having only 1 zone open is going to make the situation worse, not better.