Domination Endgame Concept Feedback

DeletedUser5268

Guest
I think there should be a restriction on mergers between alliances, and how many times a player can join an alliance or different alliances. It will make things more balanced.
A restriction could be a certain amount of days after you left your previous alliance, and until you can join a certain alliance. Maybe 10 days?
This could hopefully stop mergers, and/or steal players from other alliances.

Another thing to add is to lock alliances. If certain alliance has reached the maximum amount of people that can join or could join, that alliance cannot kick anyone else out to invite somebody else or to make space for another player.
 

Gompus Rompus

Phrourach
Another thing to add is to lock alliances. If certain alliance has reached the maximum amount of people that can join or could join, that alliance cannot kick anyone else out to invite somebody else or to make space for another player.

so no chance to kick inactives or spies? What a horrible idea.
 

DeletedUser41523

Guest
So what happens when they hit the lock amount and then just disband and reform to get around it?
 

Gompus Rompus

Phrourach
it looks like you guys just want to make this game unplayable so Inno can shut it down.
smiley_emoticons_grepo_pacman.gif
 

DeletedUser45577

Guest
1) Just found cities and get away from fighting. This is becoming a sim game anyway. So please tell me that this new end game will factor founding cities into the equation?
2) Let all the top players leave their alliances, form a new one and bingo, they win.
3) 14 days is not enough time. You need at least 3 weeks, not 2.
4) Let's add more gold to the game so the gold whores can win even more easily, he said sarcastically. This is what is driving most players out of the game to other more balanced games. At least we should minimize gold use per week or month to make it more fair and balanced. But god forbid we suggest that or we'll be hurting Inno's bottom line.
5) We don't need to make rewards cumulative. Let players pick which rewards they want. Let players pick the crown they want. And yes, let them change their mind.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

DeletedUser54192

Guest
Please don't turn this game to sim city!
I don't like an endgame, where massive alliances with many sim builders win.
Pity
Sim city actually better-describes the current endgame mechanic. The World Wonder race is just a test of which team is better at simming. In the Domination Endgame, we should actually see more wars. You won't be able to win by just colonising and defending your own territory (it is theoretically possible, but it would rely on many other teams leaving the game, which would take ages, and would be unlikely as at least a few major teams would stay if they had a chance of winning). You'll need to invade the territory of other alliances. It should actually create more wars between the major alliances as well. You'll want to be trying to decrease your competitor's growth rate by taking their cities, as well as just focusing on improving your own growth.
 

DeletedUser22517

Guest
Sim city actually better-describes the current endgame mechanic. The World Wonder race is just a test of which team is better at simming. In the Domination Endgame, we should actually see more wars. You won't be able to win by just colonising and defending your own territory (it is theoretically possible, but it would rely on many other teams leaving the game, which would take ages, and would be unlikely as at least a few major teams would stay if they had a chance of winning). You'll need to invade the territory of other alliances. It should actually create more wars between the major alliances as well. You'll want to be trying to decrease your competitor's growth rate by taking their cities, as well as just focusing on improving your own growth.

LOL, really? We won the last world with with 23 to 1 conquered against lost cities fighting entire world over 1.2k players from day one. And we built all 7 wonders with only 3.3k cities against 10k cities coalition in record time.

Can you please explain to me if new end game was on how the team with 23 to 1 ratio losses deserve to win???

SinCity united, this is what this end game is!
 

DeletedUser22517

Guest
Please don't turn this game to sim city!
I don't like an endgame, where massive alliances with many sim builders win.

Pity

No worries Vyara, you know we will find a way to win even with this new end game :D Problem is that is giving simmers more and fighters even less.
 

Gompus Rompus

Phrourach
I hope we can vote on new local council guys so we can stop this nonsense before it happens, make grepo great again, not worse than ever.
 

DeletedUser54192

Guest
LOL, really? We won the last world with with 23 to 1 conquered against lost cities fighting entire world over 1.2k players from day one. And we built all 7 wonders with only 3.3k cities against 10k cities coalition in record time.

Can you please explain to me if new end game was on how the team with 23 to 1 ratio losses deserve to win???

SinCity united, this is what this end game is!
If you kept up that ratio of conquests, then it's likely that you would win with the new system as well. Remember, coalitions and alliance families become a lot less useful. Alliances can team up to try and prevent someone else from winning, but only 1 alliance can win in the end, so MRAs/coalitions are no longer a viable end-game tactic, barring the tactic of consolidating all the top players into 1 team and throwing the rest of the group under the bus (which would then probably harm the reputation of the leaders that did that, meaning they can't get away with it on another world).

The WWs is literally a simming competition. You have to be better at sending resources and favour to your WWs than the enemy are at sending to theirs. If one team heavily outnumbers their competition, they'll most likely win and possibly get a crown straight away. So WW favours multi-branch alliances with high city density, and high-point cities with high resource/favour production. High city density means a lot of colonisation, and during WWs all of the resources got to the WWs rather than actually fighting. Multi-branch teams also allows for plenty of simmers to be kept around without making the alliance extremely vulnerable. The Domination endgame is more about how much territory you can control in comparison to the other alliances: you won't be able to win by just endlessly colonising - you have to fight other teams, preferably other major teams (to slow their growth). And as it's city number that counts, not points, it means that players aren't penalised in the end-game for having non-maxed cities and more troops in those cities. Also, as there is no specific core location to defend, it means that alliances can spread out a little more, bringing them into more wars, and decreasing the need for mass-colonisation.

Yes, there are faults with the system. But there are plenty of faults with the WW system as well, and I believe that Domination is an improvement over the current WW system.
 

DeletedUser5268

Guest
So what happens when they hit the lock amount and then just disband and reform to get around it?
You cannot, there is a lock system; Cannot disband, cannot let any more players in (unless the alliance hasn't reach the max cap), cannot kick more than 5 members a week, etc. Many things can be implemented.
You stick to said alliance until the end of the game or until the minimum amount of players have been reached, lets say 5. If there are 5 players left, they can disband. However, they cannot join any alliance until 10 days have passed. This will make it very difficult for anyone to join any other alliance.

so no chance to kick inactives or spies? What a horrible idea.
Lock alliances as in; cannot invite or more players can join until certain amount of days have passed.
You can only kick out 5 members a week, but cannot let anyone else in until certain amount of days (10 days for example)

As explained on my last post

I think there should be a restriction on mergers between alliances, and how many times a player can join an alliance or different alliances. It will make things more balanced.
A restriction could be a certain amount of days after you left your previous alliance, and until you can join a certain alliance. Maybe 10 days?
This could hopefully stop mergers, and/or steal players from other alliances.

Another thing to add is to lock alliances. If certain alliance has reached the maximum amount of people that can join or could join, that alliance cannot kick anyone else out to invite somebody else or to make space for another player.
 

NutsNBoltz

Strategos
I have been thinking, and I believe I have an idea to satisfy all parties (I think).

Fortress Conquering. So here's my idea. Domination is fun and all, but it still encourages simming and MRAs as pointed out by tig earlier. Plus, there should be some objectives to fight for. At a certain stage in the game, "fortress cities or islands" should appear. Stacked with troops, and buffs, they should be hard to break, and provide NO bp benefits. They cannot be stacked by players, just a cities with a lvl 25 wall, tower, and say 3000 swds, arch, hops, and 300 chariots (maybe even like 50 random defense myth units?)

this requires players to sacrifice resources, like WW, to a goal, to a target. You need to control X fortress cities/islands to win, and they give small buffs based on islands (similar to TW bonus villages). Like if it was a per city concept, you might get a global +0.1% attack per attack fortress cities you control, and there are 100 scattered across the map. Then, if you control 25, you get +2.5% attack as an alliance. This allows other forces to get them too. If it's an island concept, maybe 1.5% per island controlled for that buff, or something. Scatter them across oceans. This will obvious give alliance who control certain territory their buffs, and of course, they fight over them.

the buffs only extend to one alliance, and if a player who control a fortress leaves the alliance/quits, that city "resets" so the AI troops come back with AI buffs, and you lose the buff of that island. This will eliminate crown sharing, making it literally impossible unless you hand off every single fortress city/island you control.

Domination is a great idea, as WW requires little more than activity for success. yes there are wonder breaks, but you just line up attacks and hope your offense beats their defense. It gets to a point where you log in to log in, but nothing is going on. the world gets to a point of complacency, and everyone stares at each other.

This is a rough, rough outline. but we need some sort of objectives. meshing WW + domination is not a good idea. They're 2 different end game styles and should not be mixed. rather, let's make a new end game completely.
 

DeletedUser38652

Guest
Really happy this was addressed.

  • Small islands are invalid for Domination.
Valid islands will be marked and easily recognizable on the map.

This does not completely forbid foundations, but it limits the amount of space available for foundations. Therefore preventing Alliances from winning the world just by founding cities, but at the same time allowing players to found cities for other potential reasons (strategical, personal, etc).

Edit: Since we seem to be slowing it down from 18 months to 5 months endgame, is it possible to also consider reducing the WW gamemode point requirement for it to reach the endgame stage. Having an early WW means more players and potentially more alliances competing for it.
 

DeletedUser55169

Guest
good to see WW is implemented right from the beginning of a world and i like the awards for wonders, they are worth fighting over.
Only one suggestion here, coz i dont see any offensive power buff as a rewards which is pretty important i think for domination. Maybe an idea to give the Alliance that has the most wonders on 10 a offensive attack buff? This will definatly give other alliances a better reason to try bust a wonder, so more fighting and less hugging.
 

TobiramaSenju

Phrourach
This idea is .... actually very good

I have been thinking, and I believe I have an idea to satisfy all parties (I think).

Fortress Conquering. So here's my idea. Domination is fun and all, but it still encourages simming and MRAs as pointed out by tig earlier. Plus, there should be some objectives to fight for. At a certain stage in the game, "fortress cities or islands" should appear. Stacked with troops, and buffs, they should be hard to break, and provide NO bp benefits. They cannot be stacked by players, just a cities with a lvl 25 wall, tower, and say 3000 swds, arch, hops, and 300 chariots (maybe even like 50 random defense myth units?)

this requires players to sacrifice resources, like WW, to a goal, to a target. You need to control X fortress cities/islands to win, and they give small buffs based on islands (similar to TW bonus villages). Like if it was a per city concept, you might get a global +0.1% attack per attack fortress cities you control, and there are 100 scattered across the map. Then, if you control 25, you get +2.5% attack as an alliance. This allows other forces to get them too. If it's an island concept, maybe 1.5% per island controlled for that buff, or something. Scatter them across oceans. This will obvious give alliance who control certain territory their buffs, and of course, they fight over them.

the buffs only extend to one alliance, and if a player who control a fortress leaves the alliance/quits, that city "resets" so the AI troops come back with AI buffs, and you lose the buff of that island. This will eliminate crown sharing, making it literally impossible unless you hand off every single fortress city/island you control.

Domination is a great idea, as WW requires little more than activity for success. yes there are wonder breaks, but you just line up attacks and hope your offense beats their defense. It gets to a point where you log in to log in, but nothing is going on. the world gets to a point of complacency, and everyone stares at each other.

This is a rough, rough outline. but we need some sort of objectives. meshing WW + domination is not a good idea. They're 2 different end game styles and should not be mixed. rather, let's make a new end game completely.
 

DeletedUser44867

Guest
I thought I had posted this before but I guess I didn't - my bad.

Ye - in council TSF and I had been talking about an idea kind of similar to NutzNBoltz's fortress idea. In essence, at the start of domination, islands would appear on the corners of each active ocean, and then the process would be similar to domination: you need x percent of cities on all of those domination islands in order for the domination countdown to begin, and for you to win the game. We were trying to find a way to make domination fair for players, in response to the 4-core domination idea, so that they could win no matter where in the world they joined - rim, or core.
Other council members have also mentioned things much more similar to the fortress idea - there used to be a quest (I was not around when this quest was a thing, so I don't know the name of it) where players would have to try to conquer a stacked city.
People have also mentioned a 'capture the flag' type of game that has similar elements.

We (being TSF and I) ended up being hesitant on the idea mainly because we're not sure how it would effect attacking - and for fortressing, how it would be effected by player location. If the fortresses are too far away from certain oceans, people who join in later have virtually no chance of ever winning. In addition to that, we were wondering if it would really encourage people to attack each other much more. Since the aim is just to conquer an island/city/whatever, would players be inclined to actually attack other cities of players, or would they just entirely turn focus onto the fortressess, and after that point other alliances are virtually ignored?
I think I generally like the idea of fortressing/CTF being used as a extension for possible new endgames later on (as devs mentioned in blog) - but I don't think I'd like it to be the foundation of the game in general.
 
Top