Wish List Changes to the End-game Scenario.

georgiopolus

Phrourach
Proposal:
That the World Wonders End-game be changed to allow the game to have a winner and a proper World Ending.

Reason:
There is a general dissatisfction among players on all servers with the present WW scenario which although described as an end-game does not provide this. With alliances, after the first alliance to complete the WWs able to carry on and win the same honours as the first winning alliance, ad finitium.
To many players the WW scenario seems to without purpose, after all most came here to fight.
It is to encourage the spirit of the game and to avoid having to ask INNO to come up with another End-game that I have made this proposal.

Details:
My proposal is that the Rules be ammended as follows:
(a.) The Age of Wonders continues as in the past.
(b.) To win a "Victor of the World" (VoW) award an alliance must fulfill the following criteria:
(1.) Have control of the greatest number of cities.
(2.) Have the greatest total of Attack Battle Points.
(3.) Have constructed SEVEN World Wonders
(4.) There would be no limit to the number of alliances winning this award.
(c.) To win the coveted "Master of the World" (MoW)award an alliance must fulfill all the conditions of "VoW" for a period of 30 continious days (depending on world speeds)
(d.) At the end of the 30 day period the world will close and the MoW awards issued.
(e.) If during the countdown period an alliance cannot fulfill all the (VoW) criteria (1.), (2.) and (3.) the clock is stopped and the game carries on.

These ammendments should be a lot easier to implement, with the minimum of coding, as opposed to trying to implement a totally "new" end-game.

Visual Aids:
I would propose two Aids are required
(i.) In Rankings / Alliance the "Average Points per City" be changed to"Total Number of Cities" or "Total Cities" instead.
(ii.) The World will close Banner be used to display the countdown period

Balance/Abuse Prevention:
This would help to keep the game more in balance by providing an incentive for players to continue playing towards a defined objective. It also defines a clear End of Game scenario, which can also be used alongside the present Closing World conditions.
The only Abuse prevention that I can think of would be no changing of alliance members during Countdown.

Summary:
The proposed Ammendments are to provide an actual end of game scenario which should be simple to implement for INNO, provdes an end-game which will keep players interest in the world throughout the game. This scenario also provides a winner alliance and gives the awards soome meaning again.
This scenario does not mean that worlds will be short lived and could actually extend the active life of a world with more active players for longer.
 
Last edited:

georgiopolus

Phrourach
Quote Originally Posted by georgiopolus View Post
(1.) Have control of the greatest number of cities.
Alliance with the most number of cities doesn't necessarily win the world.
In this scenario, in order to win the two main Awards "MoW" and "RoW" the first 3 conditions would have to be met. How can "RoW" be awarded to an Alliance which at the time of gaining the Award is not controling the most cities?

Quote Originally Posted by georgiopolus View Post
(4.) There would be no limit to the number of alliances winning this award.
Practically defeats the whole purpose of ONE worthy alliance to be the winners.
This shows a confusion between "MoW", the winners, and "RoW". "RoW" is awarded to an Alliance which has achieved ALL of the first 3 conditions.
To achieve "MoW" or winners status an alliance must hold "RoW" for the whole countdown period otherwise their countdown is cancelled and a new countdown is started when the next "RoW" is achieved. This allows any alliance to achieve "RoW" status providing they can fulfill the criteria.
I can envisage "RoW" changing hands many times, (as with Attacker/Defender of the Day award), in an active and combative world.
"Master of the World" or "winner" is only awarded to an alliance which has proved itself worthy of the Title over the set countdown period.
 

georgiopolus

Phrourach
:heh: Whoever gets Ruler of the World is the winner. Master is taking it a step further.
From this remark I assume you have never recieved any awards appart from Quests and Special events.
At present the Ruler of the World Award is given by grades for the number of city points you have created, starting at 1,000 pts
Victor of the World is given when your alliance constructs 4 Wonders.
Master of the World is given when your alliance constructs 7 Wonders.
You will notice a theme here that in each of these Awards Battle is only a secondary concideration, rather strange for a War Game.
Also at present there is only ONE defined end of a world which is inactivity.
 

figtree2

Polemarch
From this remark I assume you have never recieved any awards appart from Quests and Special events.
At present the Ruler of the World Award is given by grades for the number of city points you have created, starting at 1,000 pts
Victor of the World is given when your alliance constructs 4 Wonders.
Master of the World is given when your alliance constructs 7 Wonders.
You will notice a theme here that in each of these Awards Battle is only a secondary concideration, rather strange for a War Game.
Also at present there is only ONE defined end of a world which is inactivity.
Too many "of the world" awards. I have gotten other awards than just events, just too many awards with the same name. You should have it as Victor of X and Master of X.
 

Omego

Guest
Your original thought was that people come here to fight, and building wonders detracts from that. Yet in your idea you still want them to build 7 wonders. So nothing is solved.
 

gkassimis

Phrourach
I totally agree with the thread. The ending of the game is awful. I don't know if they should keep the ww or not but they should definitely try to fit bp or city conquests somewhere in order to win the crown. This is a war game. Not farmville to favour simmers. Hypotheticaly speaking, it's possible one alliance to win the crown without conquering not even 1 city or having at least 1 bp. Just by colonizing a remote ocean like 00 where there are no opponents and doing festivals and colonizations. This is absurd.
 

gkassimis

Phrourach
In addition to what I ve posted higher, something must be done with super alliances that are created in order to go for ww.there are alliances that have 4-5 academies and they rotate for resources, favour excelaration etc. My opinion is after the ww start, not to allow further recruitment. Of course the academies can still provide with resources the ww, not directly but by sending to players who own cities to ww islands but they can't cut construction with favour which is also crucial. Also the ww must start later. On Fast worlds that attract the elite of the players, 6 months is too short time. Its a shame that many elite players don't want to participate to ww because they realize how unfit is ww to determine who the winner of the world is. So to summarize my proposal, I suggest an other ending or keep the current of ww with the following changes:
1)ww start min in a year
2)not allow recruitment when ww start
3)involve bps and city conquests in ww somehow. For example depending how many bps an alliance has gathered by fighting the top 10 alliances or how many cities from them they have conquered, to reduce the amount of resources or construction time needed to complete a ww.

I believe this will increase competition since there will be more fighting between giants who in many cases avoid each other and will keep the elite of the players (which are the heavier gold spenders) more time in the game
 

Aannira

Guest
There are interisting ideas here, but I have a question about this part:
(2.) Have the greatest total of Attack Battle Points.
How do you prevent agreements for easy BP, like "you build LS and slingers, and I destroy them with mine" ? This is against spririt but would happen in practice. Also, ABP is not the only criteria about fighting IMO.
 

gkassimis

Phrourach
There are interisting ideas here, but I have a question about this part:

How do you prevent agreements for easy BP, like "you build LS and slingers, and I destroy them with mine" ? This is against spririt but would happen in practice. Also, ABP is not the only criteria about fighting IMO.
I agree with this observation. That's why my proposal includes both abp and dbp and only those gathered against the top 10 aliances. Maybe we can include not only the top 10 alliances but also the top 100 players. Cause maybe one small alliance might have a strong player. Bps gained against such a player should count to.
 
Last edited:

Aannira

Guest
I agree with this observation. That's why my proposal includes both abp and dbp and only those gathered against the top 10 aliances. Maybe we can include not only the top 10 alliances but also the top 100 players. Cause maybe one small alliance might have a strong player. Bps gained against such a player should count to.
Counting ABP+DBP like in Fighters ranking looks better to me too. Looking at rankings, it seems anyway Fighters first ranks more often go with ABP first ranks. But it's more fair on principle, you don't always have the choice between attack and defense.
However, I'm not sure it would prevent the "BP trades" I talked about. I've made a proposal in this thread: to sum it up, fight against mythical monsters instead of counting BP gained between players.
 

AliOoops.

Phrourach
In addition to what I ve posted higher, something must be done with super alliances that are created in order to go for ww.there are alliances that have 4-5 academies and they rotate for resources, favour excelaration etc. My opinion is after the ww start, not to allow further recruitment. Of course the academies can still provide with resources the ww, not directly but by sending to players who own cities to ww islands but they can't cut construction with favour which is also crucial. Also the ww must start later. On Fast worlds that attract the elite of the players, 6 months is too short time. Its a shame that many elite players don't want to participate to ww because they realize how unfit is ww to determine who the winner of the world is. So to summarize my proposal, I suggest an other ending or keep the current of ww with the following changes:
1)ww start min in a year
2)not allow recruitment when ww start
3)involve bps and city conquests in ww somehow. For example depending how many bps an alliance has gathered by fighting the top 10 alliances or how many cities from them they have conquered, to reduce the amount of resources or construction time needed to complete a ww.

I believe this will increase competition since there will be more fighting between giants who in many cases avoid each other and will keep the elite of the players (which are the heavier gold spenders) more time in the game
So. How does the no recruitment thing work when, say, leaders of an alliance (for example BZC) throw a hissy fit and ghost out during ww's, does that mean the committed players they abandoned would not be able to join another alliance building ww's (for example Guns 'n' Roses)?
 

gkassimis

Phrourach
So. How does the no recruitment thing work when, say, leaders of an alliance (for example BZC) throw a hissy fit and ghost out during ww's, does that mean the committed players they abandoned would not be able to join another alliance building ww's (for example Guns 'n' Roses)?
Even if you try to bring a personal conflict to a wrong thread, the truth is that you have a point. However the decision of an alliance is an important part of the game. The players must chose wisely to which alliance they ll join. They have plenty of time to decide until the ww start. If they don't feel confident that their alliance can succeed in ww, they can join another. But it must be done before ww starts otherwise we have this freaky thing with super alliances with multiple academies as we have ATM. If their alliance dissolves after ww, like it happened to us, then I guess they pay the price of the wrong choice.