Cross world diamond collecting

[RetiredSoon]

There has been some talk on a few different guilds about Inno getting rid of the ability to collect diamonds from different worlds like we are able to do now. Has anyone else heard this?

 

[Paladiac the Pure]

I have promoting this idea for a couple years. One of the worst things that Inno ever did was allow the cross world usage of diamonds.

 

[TheKingOfKool]

Well they best give us a chance to say which city get the current diamonds before locking out the other cities.

And the cities that get locked out will be considered dead cities at that point.

 

[King Dael]

That would mean only one city per player account! I don't believe that's going to happen.

 

[Paladiac the Pure]

That would mean only one city per player account! I don't believe that's going to happen.

No it does not - you could still play more cities, you just can't sponge diamonds off from another city. It will definitely help in balancing the game (although it is probably too late now to really do anything for balancing - but at least it is a step in the right direction)

 

[Emberguard]

No it does not

For all intents and purposes if you put a restriction in that lends itself to having only 1 world.... most players are going to end up with only 1 world, no matter how many worlds you could have

If I have to use the diamonds on the world I bought them on I have no idea which world they'd land on or if I've even got that city anymore. But you can bet if it were chained to a single world I would spend less overall and restrict myself to that one world. I'm not going to spend that same amount for every city I've got, but I may spend the diamonds I do have on side worlds and then end up buying more for my main world because that balance went down due to spending them elsewhere

Has anyone else heard this?

It's nothing more than a rumor. I've never seen or heard anything from InnoGames to suggest that's going to happen. I have seen players bring it up as an idea on the Beta forum, and then other players keep bringing up that idea for whatever reason. I think it's a terrible idea that would be bad for the game. It wouldn't increase revenue, and it certainly wouldn't do anything to retain players

 

[Nidwin]

Premium currency you buy with real cash and get in game should always be account wide and never linked to one toon or city. It's up to the player to chose on which toon or city, in FOE, the diamonds will be spent.

Collecting diamonds from multiple worlds also require a player to be active in all those worlds, the exception being WW/FoY cities that have reached their limit in stacking. Inno made the right call by removing WW from events and revamping GE. Now if you truly want WW/FoY cities for some extra diamonds you play the game way more than others that don't bother.

 

[Estipar]

How a player buys, generates or spends diamonds should be their decision, having cities in multiple worlds is irrelevant

 

[Paladiac the Pure]

How a player buys, generates or spends diamonds should be their decision, having cities in multiple worlds is irrelevant

Due to the poor thinking of the developers - the multiple worlds allows players the opportunity to take advantage of the cross-world diamond market by creating near-dead cities on multiple other worlds for the sole purpose of building diamond farms - which are a real negative for guilds to have these dead cities in them, as it costs the guild goods each time for the GE and GbG usage, that most (not all) of these diamond farms do not participate in. These players use the guilds for the bonus's that it will give them, in building their farms faster. Diamond farms are a blight in the game - and getting rid of the cross world diamond usage would eliminate most of these near-dead cities to unguilded status. Thereby allowing more players to be in guilds, and guilds to be more active (if they so choose).
As well, the false statistics that these diamond farms create, making it appear that each world has more active cities then they really do (since 1-a-day collections would still make these near dead cities appear as live)

 

[klods hans]

a real negative for guilds to have these dead cities in them

If guilds don't want diamond farmers as members, then just don't let them in.

 

[Praeceptor]

If diamond farms can't supply my main city then all my other cities will be deleted. I doubt that many players would quit the game, but the number of active players in each world would drop like a stone.

 

[klods hans]

If diamond farms can't supply my main city then all my other cities will be deleted. I doubt that many players would quit the game, but the number of active players in each world would drop like a stone.

Absolutely. Same for me. I see no point in keeping multiple worlds if it wasn't for the diamonds.

 

[Paladiac the Pure]

If diamond farms can't supply my main city then all my other cities will be deleted. I doubt that many players would quit the game, but the number of active players in each world would drop like a stone.

That also depends on your definition of "active". If the sole purpose of a diamond farm is to access once a day to collect for less than a minute - is that really make it an active city. My opinon is 'no' for that. An active city (as with any game or account) is one where you actually spend time to use. For a city whose sole purpose is to collect in the hopes of getting some diamonds, and then exiting the city immediately after - really, that is just a dead city with a 30 second (or less) purpose. So any stats that are used to base on active accounts, which typically would be those accessed once a day/week (or by whatever metric) are skewed when they really have no activity other than a few seconds each day.

 

[klods hans]

That also depends on your definition of "active". If the sole purpose of a diamond farm is to access once a day to collect for less than a minute - is that really make it an active city. My opinon is 'no' for that. An active city (as with any game or account) is one where you actually spend time to use. For a city whose sole purpose is to collect in the hopes of getting some diamonds, and then exiting the city immediately after - really, that is just a dead city with a 30 second (or less) purpose. So any stats that are used to base on active accounts, which typically would be those accessed once a day/week (or by whatever metric) are skewed when they really have no activity other than a few seconds each day.

Yes, but you could also define "active" as simply "logged in". If diamond farmers stop logging in or delete their farms, they are no longer "active". When Inno counts - and sometimes brags about - how many players they have, I'm pretty sure they don't take in to account HOW active the players are. Logged in means active.

 

[rontom]

I have 10 cities, 9 are now diamond farms though in the early days i was actively playing all of them. Over the years i converted them to farms only because inno added more and more fluff to the game. At one time or another i have spent cash on all of them so i would take a dim view on any new restrictions on where i spend the diamonds i collect

 

[Praeceptor]

That also depends on your definition of "active". If the sole purpose of a diamond farm is to access once a day to collect for less than a minute - is that really make it an active city.

That's a very good point, but in some of my diamond farms I do more than collect. I am a member of a guild in 4 of them. I pol/mot guildies/friends/neighbours every day and I occasionally do events to gain more wishing wells/shrink kits. without the diamond income, I would delete them all.

 

[TheKingOfKool]

That would mean only one city per player account! I don't believe that's going to happen.

They also said: They would Never remove GvG

 

[Agent327]

They also said: They would Never remove GvG

Wrong! They said they did not plan to remove GvG.