Discussion Closing Completed Worlds Faster

Silver Witch

Strategos
Proposal:
I suggest that 3 months after the first 7 ww win there is a poll for all active players within a world with the choice of either waiting until there are less than 300 players (as now) or initiating a 28 day countdown immediately. If the majority want the world closed then it is.
If the 7 WW is still in contention I think the existing rules work well.


Have you Checked the DNS and PSI lists in the Archives? Is this idea similar to one that has been previously suggested? I don't think so.

Reason:
In the worlds i have played I have never seen serious sustained fighting after the 7 WW win. The new VM rules also make a difference IMO. We now ask WW players to manage without VM. Whilst I agree with the VM rule, players on WW in stagnant worlds are denied VM for long periods and this affects their ability to fully play other worlds.

Details: Not sure what to say here.

Visual Aids: N/A

Balance: Not sure what to say here.

Abuse Prevention: As its just a vote I don't think this is open to abuse.

Summary:
At the moment worlds close when the number of active players falls below 300. I would like to suggest this is reviewed again. It’s now 5 years since Grepolis instituted this and i think there are times when worlds stagnate for months unnecessarily.

I suggest that 3 months after all 7 WW are completed for the first time there is a vote on whether wait until the world falls below 300 players (as now) or whether to initiate a countdown immediately. An agreed majority % carries it. I suggest 60% but this could be higher if there was concern that a fighting minority would be adversely affected.
 
Last edited:

Rachel.L

Phrourach
disagree
wws does not "complete" a world
just b/c the big wallets have moved on does not mean those left are not ACTIVE
many who remain regret when inno institutes the 28 day countdown as this is when many are doing serious fighting, yes, serious sustained fighting in big numbers
pacts are dissolved and all out war is had
if you look at stats from end of world vs. middle, stats are about the same when averaging per players present

if you are bored, you are free to leave like everyone else but don't take our fun away
 

Silver Witch

Strategos
disagree
wws does not "complete" a world
just b/c the big wallets have moved on does not mean those left are not ACTIVE
many who remain regret when inno institutes the 28 day countdown as this is when many are doing serious fighting, yes, serious sustained fighting in big numbers
pacts are dissolved and all out war is had
if you look at stats from end of world vs. middle, stats are about the same when averaging per players present

if you are bored, you are free to leave like everyone else but don't take our fun away

Rachel I agree with you that not all worlds are the same but i am not suggesting here that we close a world early if there are players who want to stay. I am suggesting we give it 3 months and then we vote on it.

If as you say there is 'serious sustained fighting in big numbers' then the vote would be against closing so no harm done. Ive been playing for several years but mostly conquest which may be different to revolt. However i can't see that if its a vote this would cause a problem.

In Helike for example WW were completed last November. My team there agreed that we would stay and defend the WW. There was a quiet period over christmas and then some play in Jan - really mainly my team breaking other ww since we had to do something. Yes some players have kept going but actually more because they were bored. Most would have much preferred to play another world. I did play elsewhere but it presents difficulties playing an active world if you cannot take VM. Eventually I gave up the WW cities - which is of course an option - but constantly swapping WW cities when a world is over is also boring. The Players who hold WW cities, in all alliances not just the winners, are most likely the ones that would like to be active in other worlds. I do believe if we had taken a vote in February that it would have been overwhelmingly to close it. As it is the countdown is in progress now, Helike will close 10 months after the 7 Win, no one even tried to break one of our WW.

If there is concern that a fighting minority would be discriminated against the we could say the vote result had to be 75%/80% in favour of closing.
 
Last edited:

Rachel.L

Phrourach
SW, i understand your point that a vote can't hurt
and all worlds are different, true
at some point, everyone ignores wws and just fights; this is the fighting i'm discussing
i've even seen alliances knock down wws after a crown so players don't need to defend
we'll see what others have to say
 

niknik

Phrourach
Honestly, I favor Rachel's side. Granted, I have never played till WW's were ended due to being deployed when it came around to that time in a couple worlds. However, I play Grepolis for the fun of war and strategy. Honestly, I actually dislike WW's BECAUSE it means eventually the world is going to close. I do not want to lose months and months of hard work and progress.

If my opinion means anything to anyone, I would like to see the possibility of the worlds continuance until the world is deemed inactive. If Team Grepolis feels that is 300 active members, then so be it.

Thank you.

V/r,
Nik
 

Silver Witch

Strategos
Honestly, I favor Rachel's side. Granted, I have never played till WW's were ended due to being deployed when it came around to that time in a couple worlds. However, I play Grepolis for the fun of war and strategy. Honestly, I actually dislike WW's BECAUSE it means eventually the world is going to close. I do not want to lose months and months of hard work and progress.

If my opinion means anything to anyone, I would like to see the possibility of the worlds continuance until the world is deemed inactive. If Team Grepolis feels that is 300 active members, then so be it.

Thank you.

V/r,
Nik
If you say you have never stayed after WW you don't understand what its like. Granted everyone has the option to leave but many stay to defend WW, others want to gain the 'Last man standing ' award. Ive not seen any real fighting 3 months after WW finishes. Its a nice idea but it isn't happening.

I played Olynthus, that was one of the longest running worlds but there the 7 WW was split and the fighting continued seriously for an additional 12 months after the 4 win. However its different when 7 is still in contention.

Whatever the views about WW they provide a focus to the game. Once that focus is lost there is a short time when many players want to deal with old scores/just have bit fun again but rarely is that for longer than 3 months.

I accept I haven't played every world and of course there are exceptions but thats the purpose of a vote.
 

DeletedUser55176

Guest
I've played in quite a few different worlds and I think that the overwhelming majority of players feel that the end takes too long.

Because alliances are more and more organised with regards to which players are on WW islands, where they are located and the levels of support, you rarely see serious attempts at taking WW cities. Making the cities attack-able whilst in VM was probably an attempt to improve this.

Once the game has been won it is effectively over, with small skirmishes here and there to kill the boredom and appear active, but nothing really to play for, while the numbers drop at what can be a painfully slow rate.

It's always been a huge downside to me and many players that I've played with, and I think that most would appreciate any ideas to improve or change this for the better.
 

maxilex

Phrourach
I have strong feelings on this one - largely due to the fact that Sinope is still running. Should I be accepted to the player council, it is one of the things I propose to address.

A world going on long after WWs are won serves no purpose - and it cant be any value to Innogames either - after all, who is interested in buying troops, or participating in events on a world that should have closed two years ago.

My suggestion, which I have proposed in their 'suggestion box' format - is that after the winner of 7 is announced, the countdown starts..in that the number of pllayers required close the world increases every month. Ie one month after the world winners are decided, the number of players required to close the world is 300..2 months, it is 400, 3 months it is 500..etc, so the end is reached much more quickly. It is like the onset of WW process in reverse if you like.

I a not pushing one solution over another - but merely suggesting that the ending process be reviewed..the current situation is not ideal.
 

maxilex

Phrourach
Another key factor in this debate is the recent change to VM rules. How can you ask a player to never take VM basically, when a world lasts years after WW finishes?

I realise there is the possibility to hand cities on, but the reality of that is a logistical nightmare.

Seriously, why bother having a 'winning point', if the world just keeps on going - you could just let world run until one alliance owns it all..

Sinope started Jan 12th 2015, WWs started just after I began playing grepolis, late 2015 - and it is still going with just over the threshold players. That is just nuts.
 

Silver Witch

Strategos
Another key factor in this debate is the recent change to VM rules. How can you ask a player to never take VM basically, when a world lasts years after WW finishes?

I realise there is the possibility to hand cities on, but the reality of that is a logistical nightmare.

Seriously, why bother having a 'winning point', if the world just keeps on going - you could just let world run until one alliance owns it all..

Sinope started Jan 12th 2015, WWs started just after I began playing grepolis, late 2015 - and it is still going with just over the threshold players. That is just nuts.

I agree this is what has made this much more important. In the past it was easier to have these dormant worlds just sitting in the background - its not as if anyone actually attacks anyway. Now however if you are on WW islands you can't take VM without handing cities on - well not if you are responsible. In Helike I did eventually hand over 30 cities - 8 months after WW to take VM. Helike was conquest, no walls, didn't really need defence so handing on is reasonably practical if it has to be done. Its not so easy in revolt.

You can see attacks on WW cities whilst in VM but even so......
 

DeletedUser54702

Guest
I agree with this idea. The current way in which worlds close is ridiculous, and the majority of the community does not play years after WWs have ended.

When an alliance wins a world is there any practical reason for the world to go on for 2 more years? Maybe a small minority find it fun to conquer ghosts and inactives... most don't and want to move on.

Having players vote whether or not to close a world would be one way of going about fixing this, let the server community decide perhaps every month if they want the server to keep going. Let us say a 60% majority would need to vote to keep a server alive.

That is better than having dead worlds sitting around.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Top