mungus1974
Strategos
Dumbo again and again put this in your simple brain:Mungus
yes and 1k of those were 36 to 48 hour cs rides lol well played
Troops speed have nothing to do with world speed!!!
Domination Endgame Concept Feedback
- Thread starter Baudin Toolan
- Start date
Troops speed have nothing to do with world speed!!!
Phidippidies
Phrourach
No, this was an idea that has been suggested by players. This example in particular was a popular one among players in another server. So to be further clear: This has nothing to do with where 'this is heading', it is simply an idea." Capture The Flag " that is where this is heading JHC
Ranga1
Strategos
Lol and i bet you are one of those people that go to McDonald's to buy a salad
you just don't get the point EffDeeGee
Hipparchus
Small pitch;
WW idea sounds solid... but. Broken if implemented in the way it is currently;
A solution would be - building wonders from levels 1-5 stays exactly the same, but the formula for the next levels would be drastically changed.
(x * w) * (1 + y / z )
x = current cost
w = world speed
y = alliance count
z = alliance max count
Current prices where w = 1 (old formula, x * w )
6 2,800,000
7 4,800,000
8 8,200,000
9 14,000,000
10 23,800,000
Revamped Prices where w = 1, y = 35, z = 40 (proposed formula)
6 5,250,000 % buff = ??
7 9,000,000
8 15,375,000
9 26,250,000
10 44,625,000
However. Any alliance that chose to build the wonders to lvl 10 would be available, however. In doing so, they would have to invest lots of resources for a long period of time - resulting in loss of growth. Fundamentally affecting the end-game goal of alliances.
P.s. Numbers could be made slightly higher through adding variable l
l = level (int -> 1 - 5) / 10
(x * w) * ( 1 + y / z + l).
P.s. I have no clue about what could be done for the time or the buffs given for each level
P.s.s. Can we see the introduction of battle points as a more fundamental feature of winning? I'd love to see fighting alliances represented! Especially if they don't meet the alliance cap (therefore making it easier to make the wonders)
P.s.s.s. I understand this promotes the idea of 20 or so leaving the alliance to build the wonder at a better rate -- im sure there are easy ways to counter this
( lock alliances, the max amount of people in the alliance at once = y {could be disband but if alliance BP is a facter it would be suicidal} etc)
p.s.s.s.s. there would be a buff given at lvl 5 (not 1-4)
WW idea sounds solid... but. Broken if implemented in the way it is currently;
A solution would be - building wonders from levels 1-5 stays exactly the same, but the formula for the next levels would be drastically changed.
(x * w) * (1 + y / z )
x = current cost
w = world speed
y = alliance count
z = alliance max count
Current prices where w = 1 (old formula, x * w )
6 2,800,000
7 4,800,000
8 8,200,000
9 14,000,000
10 23,800,000
Revamped Prices where w = 1, y = 35, z = 40 (proposed formula)
6 5,250,000 % buff = ??
7 9,000,000
8 15,375,000
9 26,250,000
10 44,625,000
However. Any alliance that chose to build the wonders to lvl 10 would be available, however. In doing so, they would have to invest lots of resources for a long period of time - resulting in loss of growth. Fundamentally affecting the end-game goal of alliances.
P.s. Numbers could be made slightly higher through adding variable l
l = level (int -> 1 - 5) / 10
(x * w) * ( 1 + y / z + l).
P.s. I have no clue about what could be done for the time or the buffs given for each level
P.s.s. Can we see the introduction of battle points as a more fundamental feature of winning? I'd love to see fighting alliances represented! Especially if they don't meet the alliance cap (therefore making it easier to make the wonders)
P.s.s.s. I understand this promotes the idea of 20 or so leaving the alliance to build the wonder at a better rate -- im sure there are easy ways to counter this
( lock alliances, the max amount of people in the alliance at once = y {could be disband but if alliance BP is a facter it would be suicidal} etc)
p.s.s.s.s. there would be a buff given at lvl 5 (not 1-4)
Last edited:
Lord Prometey
Chiliarch
Just a quick idea from me.
The buffs receved by creating the WW should be something new and creative, that changes the playstyle and opens new possibilities and new tacticts, and not just percentage increase for attacking and such.
I don't really have an idea what that might be, but we have a lot of creative people here.
The buffs receved by creating the WW should be something new and creative, that changes the playstyle and opens new possibilities and new tacticts, and not just percentage increase for attacking and such.
I don't really have an idea what that might be, but we have a lot of creative people here.
Genios
Phrourach
I don't really like that idea because it blocks other players from that new playstyle as only one alliance can achieve WW or the engame and therefore they cannot experience the new playstyle and could be dominated by the winning alliance. I think balance wise the buffs you get are good enough and already give them incentive to build and win and also aren't too powerful to block other alliances out.
Lord Prometey
Chiliarch
I meant more like some goofy buffs, which need to be used creatively, but I agree with you. I just like the change and the grepolis team showed that they can make some cool changes by introducing heroes and bandit camps.
Fontenay
Phrourach
I have not read this thread in detail but I like the idea of a Domination win and think this should be trialed to see how it works in practice. But I think WW worlds and domination world should be kept separate. Because some players may prefer a simply defined end-game that WWs provides as opposed to a more open-ended end-game which I understand by Domination.
Fluvisol
Phrourach
I really like this idea, takes away all the coring up and sending res to wonders
Making wonders an option is nice because people will have to choose between being spread out and having more possible cs targets, or coring up to build wonders while also forfeiting their growth for a bit while they build
As some people might know I'm a huge fan of just being everywhere and fighting everyone, so it's nice to see that there could be an end game where cores aren't as relevant. Inactive players will be weeded out sooner I think because people won't just look at close islands and refuse to support long range sieges
I also think pacts and naps are gonna be way less common since unlike wonders, you can't just demolish one level and build it again to give everyone a crown (that's still a thing right? I usually ignore all wonder based stuff and just go ham on the people that try to build em), and it also takes away targets from both alliances while not counting towards the domination %
In 90% of the cases simmers will win the crown because either 1) people who actually fight don't care about wonders 2) They just have a numbers advantage
And yes yes I can hear your cries already "but they were 1.2k plaaaayers". On a speed 1 world unit speed 2 world. Simmers get bored easily while you can clear their cities relatively fast meaning you grow faster than them. Higher speed worlds mean faster festivals so easier to grow for simmers. I mean the #7 player on Rhodes doesn't even have bloody alarms and he's got 150ish cities
Coalitions won't count together for domination either if I understand this right, just one alliance of them, so that's not a valid point either
If you like wonders, I hope for you they keep making worlds with them
If not I hope I meet you in game when I have time to play again so I can see the efficiency you keep bragging about for myself, been a while since I had some decent fights
Would have to be in a 3/3 world or higher though, I don't really want to be able to have a nap between senate levels
Making wonders an option is nice because people will have to choose between being spread out and having more possible cs targets, or coring up to build wonders while also forfeiting their growth for a bit while they build
As some people might know I'm a huge fan of just being everywhere and fighting everyone, so it's nice to see that there could be an end game where cores aren't as relevant. Inactive players will be weeded out sooner I think because people won't just look at close islands and refuse to support long range sieges
I also think pacts and naps are gonna be way less common since unlike wonders, you can't just demolish one level and build it again to give everyone a crown (that's still a thing right? I usually ignore all wonder based stuff and just go ham on the people that try to build em), and it also takes away targets from both alliances while not counting towards the domination %
You absolute carrot nobody is saying anything about your particular world
In 90% of the cases simmers will win the crown because either 1) people who actually fight don't care about wonders 2) They just have a numbers advantage
And yes yes I can hear your cries already "but they were 1.2k plaaaayers". On a speed 1 world unit speed 2 world. Simmers get bored easily while you can clear their cities relatively fast meaning you grow faster than them. Higher speed worlds mean faster festivals so easier to grow for simmers. I mean the #7 player on Rhodes doesn't even have bloody alarms and he's got 150ish cities
Coalitions won't count together for domination either if I understand this right, just one alliance of them, so that's not a valid point either
If you like wonders, I hope for you they keep making worlds with them
If not I hope I meet you in game when I have time to play again so I can see the efficiency you keep bragging about for myself, been a while since I had some decent fights
Would have to be in a 3/3 world or higher though, I don't really want to be able to have a nap between senate levels
Fluvisol
Phrourach
Please if you build all 7 wonders minotaurs can now walk on water
I would actually build wonders for once, I love minos, this would make them even more viable
MartinusV
Strategos
We don't need a better end game. We need a better start and middle game to keep more players interested. Retention is a massive problem in all worlds and this proposal will not change that at all.
It would be interesting to see if you created a world where no gold was allowed, I bet my mortgage more players would stay and enjoy the game more. It may even draw players back into the game.
It would be interesting to see if you created a world where no gold was allowed, I bet my mortgage more players would stay and enjoy the game more. It may even draw players back into the game.
Phidippidies
Phrourach
There is a theory with this end game idea that everything will be 'sped up' and the end game, being the domination period itself and the actual win condition, will be reachable faster and might encourage more people to stick around because they'll find it more feasible to actually play and win, and not step down out of boredom while waiting for the endgame. That is a theory, anyways - a lot of people are concerned that gaining 50% domination might take longer than expected, if not be impossible.
The concept of having a no-gold world is one that has been suggested for a very long time..... Many people I've talked to have offered to pay between 50-100 for a single buy-in, no gold game. TSF has also been a pretty hard advocate for the devs opening "classical worlds", except as legitimate, moderated worlds, more frequently as specialized worlds, since there was a huge draw to it. Such a huge draw that it crashed the servers quite frequently.
However, the developers aren't a fan of this idea and haven't run with it yet. (Which, in some ways, I understand. Introducing a long-term buy in world might mean most of their players run to those worlds, and the new players arrive into lowly populated gold worlds with gigantic gold users pummeling them out of the game)
Donpj111
Phrourach
I am fully for a server which is based on fighting (= domination). I belong amongst those who hate the Wonder-race...
Could you perhaps make it a mix of BP gain and held cities (or conquered) in some way... and these numbers divided would give a domination score and once an alliance reach a certain level they have to mark a dominated Island as “wonder Island” and have to hold enemies off this island for a given period of time? If they fail to do so they get a cut on the domination score and have to work on reaching their score again.
But most important... dont make the servers short. 5 months is too short, i personally prefer 7-9 months as fighting (and the progress of your alliance in general) is the fun part.
Could you perhaps make it a mix of BP gain and held cities (or conquered) in some way... and these numbers divided would give a domination score and once an alliance reach a certain level they have to mark a dominated Island as “wonder Island” and have to hold enemies off this island for a given period of time? If they fail to do so they get a cut on the domination score and have to work on reaching their score again.
But most important... dont make the servers short. 5 months is too short, i personally prefer 7-9 months as fighting (and the progress of your alliance in general) is the fun part.
MartinusV
Strategos
Lock Wars
1 alliance can only war with 1 other at a time
War is won once a target is set, ie first to conquer 20 cities or points based on certain aspects of the game
Then either they continue to another war of first to 20 or start a war with another alliance.
More meaningful stats and will really push the fighters. Win the first 20-19, lose 7-20, win 20-14 and so on.
Benefits
1. No alliance can take out small or new alliances which allows them to grow
2. If a bigger alliance does war with a small or new alliance they only lose 20 cities and the war ends allowing them to grow
3. Alliances cannot gang up on another alliance because you can only be at war with one other
4. Once locked in your war the player cannot leave their alliance until the war is over
5. You cannot attack allies at all, which stops BP feeding.
6. You must be at war to attack, its a war game. IF you are against this aspect leave!!!!!
7. You can attack your own alliance to resolve internals but no BP received
Start Game:
More players will survive for longer = retention.
Gold users will still build fast but they will not be able to take out small players/alliances. Get this they have to prepare to fight real players - a far fetched concept indeed.
Mid Game: Lots of wars, loads of fighting and many more established alliances now they have been given the time to grow.
End Game: Domination fits in with the above
Don't get me wrong there are many variables to consider. Single player alliances for example would need to be scrapped and a minimum put in place. But to me there are so many possibilities with this that the war statistics would be amazing.
1 alliance can only war with 1 other at a time
War is won once a target is set, ie first to conquer 20 cities or points based on certain aspects of the game
Then either they continue to another war of first to 20 or start a war with another alliance.
More meaningful stats and will really push the fighters. Win the first 20-19, lose 7-20, win 20-14 and so on.
Benefits
1. No alliance can take out small or new alliances which allows them to grow
2. If a bigger alliance does war with a small or new alliance they only lose 20 cities and the war ends allowing them to grow
3. Alliances cannot gang up on another alliance because you can only be at war with one other
4. Once locked in your war the player cannot leave their alliance until the war is over
5. You cannot attack allies at all, which stops BP feeding.
6. You must be at war to attack, its a war game. IF you are against this aspect leave!!!!!
7. You can attack your own alliance to resolve internals but no BP received
Start Game:
More players will survive for longer = retention.
Gold users will still build fast but they will not be able to take out small players/alliances. Get this they have to prepare to fight real players - a far fetched concept indeed.
Mid Game: Lots of wars, loads of fighting and many more established alliances now they have been given the time to grow.
End Game: Domination fits in with the above
Don't get me wrong there are many variables to consider. Single player alliances for example would need to be scrapped and a minimum put in place. But to me there are so many possibilities with this that the war statistics would be amazing.
Tarbisu
Hipparchus
Do we have any further information on the " valid domination area ".
Because plugging data from a few worlds with the 'old' formula (no ghost cities, with aCityCount / tCityCount) the %'s are meek at best.
(using
function CalcDom(cities, totalCities){
return (cities / totalCities) * 100;
}
) as a reference.
(totalCities is already filters out ghost cities)
But right now the top alliance is sitting at 12%
Because plugging data from a few worlds with the 'old' formula (no ghost cities, with aCityCount / tCityCount) the %'s are meek at best.
(using
function CalcDom(cities, totalCities){
return (cities / totalCities) * 100;
}
) as a reference.
(totalCities is already filters out ghost cities)
But right now the top alliance is sitting at 12%
Last edited:
OldDragon
Phrourach
A very astute observation.
Either way, your alliance will need a huge number of slots.
Point players know how to make slots.
This will force BP generation thru cannibalization of friendly units - it's an efficient slot process.
The rim is an empty place.
You cannot take cities that don't exist.
You need to stay near the core to take prebuilt cities.
I don't think late starters will stand any chance.
And of course, if one alliance is not dominating, then two or more groups of large point players will merge suddenly to form a quick winning mass of cities well over the 50% criteria. That is the logical strategy so expect it.
PrettyMaria
Phrourach
I don't agree with you here. For small but active alliance - it is still possible to be a dominator. Less "bigger" players means more CPs and more new cities. It's just, instead of sending resources to Wonders, alliance needs to run festivals and found new cisites, build them up to run more festivals.
From other side, it is also farming (similarly to sending resources for building Wonders) - but another way of it.
PrettyMaria
Phrourach
Actually idea with domination through cities "power" of alliance is not that bad. It corresponds to medieval definition of domination, where more powerful lord had bigger "cities-power".
But it is noncense just count cities number and in a such way pretend, that 10 cities 300 points large - can have the same domination power like 10 cities 30000 pojnts large. Domination should be based not on cities number in alliance but on "cities-power". And "cities-power" could be a total of all cities-points in allinace - and not just a number of cities .
But it is noncense just count cities number and in a such way pretend, that 10 cities 300 points large - can have the same domination power like 10 cities 30000 pojnts large. Domination should be based not on cities number in alliance but on "cities-power". And "cities-power" could be a total of all cities-points in allinace - and not just a number of cities .