DeletedUser41523
Guest
Just my notes from my brief time in Leontini but it looks like academies were still a thing. I'm not sure that they'll eventually fight either. Will be interesting to see how that plays out.
Domination Endgame Concept Feedback
- Thread starter Baudin Toolan
- Start date
DeletedUser56248
Guest
Alright... the first Greek server with Domination is coming to an end and here is some feedback.
It's astonishing that this mode is even worse than the Wonders(which is terrible). In theory, there should be a lot of fighting and it kind of did... for about 2 months. After that it was not worth it to hit the opponents because you would basically give them free culture points. Instead, people started breaking stuff to each other because that was the most efficient way to gather the cities that were needed.
Moreover, the second, third, fourth and fifth alliances made a treaty and the first alliance was fighting with the whole server. In the end, they gathered their biggest players to one alliance and hit the 40% mark. The rest of their members were basically screwed. So, in the end the best alliance lost because the other big alliances decided to win the world whatever it takes. Diplomacy is obviously a part of this game, but domination was all about eliminating these things.
All in all, it was a terrible server. Two months of fighting and three months of breaking stuff to each other and doing VPs.
Never again.
It's astonishing that this mode is even worse than the Wonders(which is terrible). In theory, there should be a lot of fighting and it kind of did... for about 2 months. After that it was not worth it to hit the opponents because you would basically give them free culture points. Instead, people started breaking stuff to each other because that was the most efficient way to gather the cities that were needed.
Moreover, the second, third, fourth and fifth alliances made a treaty and the first alliance was fighting with the whole server. In the end, they gathered their biggest players to one alliance and hit the 40% mark. The rest of their members were basically screwed. So, in the end the best alliance lost because the other big alliances decided to win the world whatever it takes. Diplomacy is obviously a part of this game, but domination was all about eliminating these things.
All in all, it was a terrible server. Two months of fighting and three months of breaking stuff to each other and doing VPs.
Never again.
DeletedUser54775
Guest
I briefly played Leontini, and I did not like it. I thought that the hugging between mega coalitions would have stopped, but this was not the case.
I really enjoy World Wonders. Domination, in my view became a very abstract concept.
I believe that there could be more simple rules for both type of endgames or combinations of both endgames.
1) The alliance that completely controls or a high percentage of (905) specific areas wins. For example, the area could be an entire ocean. Our the four areas at the corners of oceans. It has to have some representation to reality. The Roman and Greek empires needed to get hold of specific ares and city states to be considered dominant.
2) The alliance has to build world wonders in different oceans and has to control a high percentage of cities on the adjacent islands.
The worlds do not have to come to an end soon after victory conditions. If people are still playing and enjoying the battles they can continue until it goes below certain threshold.
I really wish that the developers would give to islands different productivity values. This is the reality of the world. Some areas could produce more wood, some areas could produce more silver, some areas could produce more rock, some areas could be more balanced. other areas in the middle of oceans could be almost desertic. this would increase exploration and very interesting combinations and diplomatic challenges that would make the world more fun.
They could even have some permanent worlds (not like the ones of now), but where certain areas have to be kept.
I really enjoy World Wonders. Domination, in my view became a very abstract concept.
I believe that there could be more simple rules for both type of endgames or combinations of both endgames.
1) The alliance that completely controls or a high percentage of (905) specific areas wins. For example, the area could be an entire ocean. Our the four areas at the corners of oceans. It has to have some representation to reality. The Roman and Greek empires needed to get hold of specific ares and city states to be considered dominant.
2) The alliance has to build world wonders in different oceans and has to control a high percentage of cities on the adjacent islands.
The worlds do not have to come to an end soon after victory conditions. If people are still playing and enjoying the battles they can continue until it goes below certain threshold.
I really wish that the developers would give to islands different productivity values. This is the reality of the world. Some areas could produce more wood, some areas could produce more silver, some areas could produce more rock, some areas could be more balanced. other areas in the middle of oceans could be almost desertic. this would increase exploration and very interesting combinations and diplomatic challenges that would make the world more fun.
They could even have some permanent worlds (not like the ones of now), but where certain areas have to be kept.
DeletedUser56281
Guest
LOOOL Domination is so broken, some alliances are not fighting but just attacking themselves internally to get bps and then plan to colonize a bunch of 1k cities. So apparently 1k city is the same in power as 17.6k city? So, for example, holding Constantinople is the same as owning a garden shed?!
Their must be a limit on what makes a city on a valid island a city that is a valid Domination city, for example when a city becomes 5k or 10k in points(could be different settings for different servers) in size it becomes domination valid so players actually fight over cities and bother defending as it is too easy to just colonize and replace the cities you lose without any consequence.
Their must be a limit on what makes a city on a valid island a city that is a valid Domination city, for example when a city becomes 5k or 10k in points(could be different settings for different servers) in size it becomes domination valid so players actually fight over cities and bother defending as it is too easy to just colonize and replace the cities you lose without any consequence.
1saaa
Strategos
There will come a point when there are no slots left in the valid area...
But you do give a good point. I imagine the logic may be to give smaller teams a chance? Or maybe people could focus on stone hail and lighting bolts to knock down cities? That would cripple the intent for taking cities.
But you do give a good point. I imagine the logic may be to give smaller teams a chance? Or maybe people could focus on stone hail and lighting bolts to knock down cities? That would cripple the intent for taking cities.
Silver Witch
Strategos
The behaviour of the players doesnt mean the Dom concept is broken. It was created in response to players who said they only wanted to fight - not build WW. I agree with you its outside the spirit of the game to attack internally within an alliance for bp.
In terms of the city points. Realistically if you play properly then it is of far more value to take a fully built enemy city and alliances that grow through colonising grow more slowly and have less power and strength. An enemy city takes days to become productive - a colony takes weeks. Colonies are strategically necessary in any fight though so personally I wouldnt want them to be excluded from the total.
I do believe its possible - more so than the WW game - for an alliance to fight and win Dom properly. The pacting setup is popular because actually theres a lot of players who like simming and dont want non stop attacks but there can only be one winner in Dom so most players in a pact setup can never win. From what Ive seen - as a player and an outsider - the loyalty is often lacking in Dom. More cities = a win so the bigger players jump around. However I think a solid and loyal alliance who dont pact and fight can win with this model and thats what it was designed for.
Last edited:
DeletedUser54775
Guest
The problem with Domination relies on unintended consequences. I agree with Silver Witch that in theory the game should have encouraged fighting. However, it completely backfired. This is not the fault of the developers. You can not predict everything. It is likely Prohibition Laws and the War on Drugs.
Prohibition in the 1920s United States, originally enacted to suppress the alcohol trade, drove many small-time alcohol suppliers out of business and consolidated the hold of large-scale organized crime over the illegal alcohol industry. Since alcohol was still popular, criminal organisations producing alcohol were well-funded and hence also increased their other activities. Similarly, the War on Drugs, intended to suppress the illegal drug trade, instead increased the power and profitability of drug cartels who became the primary source of the products.
We should realize that many leaders and players are more Farmville type of players. They do not like to attack or have wars. We have a peaceful bunch of players. This makes it tough. They only attack on big groups.
The problem of Domination is that the the "winning" conditions are not based on a clear cut standard that relates something that causes direct conflict and wars. The history of warfare is not based on war for the sake of war or territory for the sake of territory. The Romans did not go in to Germany because there was nothing of interest for them at the time. The went into Egypt to control the grain. They went into Spain to control the natural resources. They went into North Africa to control the Trade (Carthage). They went into West Europe to the the fertile land. The list goes on. The same for more modern Empires. The Americans are in the Middle East for the Oil, the Americas for safety and natural resources.
This is what the game is missing. A conflict is created when group of people have to control a specific resource. World Wonders was specific.
At the moment, the domination conditions are really vague and non specific in terms of land or resources. As the previous poster stated, a city that is 1,000 counts the same as a city of 17,000, which is not only silly but does not create inherent conflict.
In addition to non specificity. Then we have the problem of unintended consequences. The game became a bartering of players or auctioning of players or cities. This started since the start of the server.
Does anyone knows why they do not have simple domination of highly desirable areas? (i.e. higher resource productivity)
Alternatively. Why not just go for domination of an ocean?
Does anyone knows why they do not put regulations of having World Wonders on different oceans and that in order to win they have to hold the world wonder for lets say 1 or 2 months with no possibility of rotation of crowns?
These are really simple solutions. The simpler and more concrete the game, the better. However, it has to reflect some sort of resemblance to reality. Otherwise, there is no conflict. People do not fight for the sake of fighting. They fight when there is a resource or safety is at stake.
Prohibition in the 1920s United States, originally enacted to suppress the alcohol trade, drove many small-time alcohol suppliers out of business and consolidated the hold of large-scale organized crime over the illegal alcohol industry. Since alcohol was still popular, criminal organisations producing alcohol were well-funded and hence also increased their other activities. Similarly, the War on Drugs, intended to suppress the illegal drug trade, instead increased the power and profitability of drug cartels who became the primary source of the products.
We should realize that many leaders and players are more Farmville type of players. They do not like to attack or have wars. We have a peaceful bunch of players. This makes it tough. They only attack on big groups.
The problem of Domination is that the the "winning" conditions are not based on a clear cut standard that relates something that causes direct conflict and wars. The history of warfare is not based on war for the sake of war or territory for the sake of territory. The Romans did not go in to Germany because there was nothing of interest for them at the time. The went into Egypt to control the grain. They went into Spain to control the natural resources. They went into North Africa to control the Trade (Carthage). They went into West Europe to the the fertile land. The list goes on. The same for more modern Empires. The Americans are in the Middle East for the Oil, the Americas for safety and natural resources.
This is what the game is missing. A conflict is created when group of people have to control a specific resource. World Wonders was specific.
At the moment, the domination conditions are really vague and non specific in terms of land or resources. As the previous poster stated, a city that is 1,000 counts the same as a city of 17,000, which is not only silly but does not create inherent conflict.
In addition to non specificity. Then we have the problem of unintended consequences. The game became a bartering of players or auctioning of players or cities. This started since the start of the server.
Does anyone knows why they do not have simple domination of highly desirable areas? (i.e. higher resource productivity)
Alternatively. Why not just go for domination of an ocean?
Does anyone knows why they do not put regulations of having World Wonders on different oceans and that in order to win they have to hold the world wonder for lets say 1 or 2 months with no possibility of rotation of crowns?
These are really simple solutions. The simpler and more concrete the game, the better. However, it has to reflect some sort of resemblance to reality. Otherwise, there is no conflict. People do not fight for the sake of fighting. They fight when there is a resource or safety is at stake.