Passed End Game Idea

[DeletedUser]

Not at all. Were there to be a forced disbanding of alliances, it is giving people options that they may not have otherwise. It's up to them which options they take - going solo, fighting with a couple of close friends, or trying to reform everyone into an alliance again.

Yes it is, the whole point to that part of this idea was to see who the best player is. If one alliance remains allied informally and still works together, then it will still not truly show who the best player is. The only way to make that work is if everybody treats it as a free for all, which I sincerely doubt will happen.

 

[DeletedUser]

Yes it is, the whole point to that part of this idea was to see who the best player is. If one alliance remains allied informally and still works together, then it will still not truly show who the best player is. The only way to make that work is if everybody treats it as a free for all, which I sincerely doubt will happen.

Sooner or later in a game like this, there comes a point where there has to be some trust put in the players to do the right thing. You can never force everyone to treat it as a free-for-all, because there will always be ways of communicating ingame and outside of the game. All you can do is encourage players to think for themselves.

 

[DeletedUser]

Sooner or later in a game like this, there comes a point where there has to be some trust put in the players to do the right thing. You can never force everyone to treat it as a free-for-all, because there will always be ways of communicating ingame and outside of the game. All you can do is encourage players to think for themselves.

By that logic, you can just "trust" people not to cheat and that in game moderators are not needed. But that just doesn't happen. People WILL cheat to try to gain an unfair advantage, just like people WOULD make informal alliances to gain an unfair advantage.

 

[DeletedUser]

By that logic, you can just "trust" people not to cheat and that in game moderators are not needed. But that just doesn't happen. People WILL cheat to try to gain an unfair advantage, just like people WOULD make informal alliances to gain an unfair advantage.

Ah, but preventing cheating is something that can be done, easily enough. There are systems in place to prevent it, and to bring it to the attention of the moderators when it happens. Discussions and cooperation outside of an alliance.. that isn't something that you can prevent, nor is it something that you can justify trying to prevent. They're very different things.

 

[Baudin Toolan]

I actually already mentioned that forming informal alliances was cool. The alliance feature would be gone as would all the features that come with them, internal forums and easy mass mail. Without those even if you are working together it'll become slightly more difficult which makes it more fair to the players attacking the informal alliance. Plus who is to say that some members of the alliance don't turn on each in their greed to take one of the top spots. Elements such as that are normally less common during the regular gameplay but in this idea scenario they become far more common. Taking away a few simple things simplifies the game in some aspects (attack and conquer everyone) and complicates them in others (forming informal alliances and watching out for betrayals)

 

[DeletedUser18132]

Like it except for the alliances part.

 

[DeletedUser]

A surprisingly good idea, and this would be much more interesting than watching a world slowly decay into nothingness, letting IG decide when to finally close down a world. Think of this as the MMO equivalent of a death match suddenly occuring at the end of the game.

 

[DeletedUser24356]

+ rep here, I like this idea because we see who the best Alliance is with WW but we don't see who the best Players are this would show who the best players are. But I think the world should slowly shrink after the WWs because it would be like right after the WW stage it just goes POP

 

[DeletedUser20429]

DOUBLE POSTER!!!!

Anyway, I love the idea. Though, I would like it if everyone got 50 cities and 500k points. Then just let people do whatever. It would be kinda hard to organize that though. Maybe give each player 3 islands on which their cities are with 40 of their cities (20 on each island) on FV islands and the other on non-FV islands.

He's a mod he's allowed to

 

[DeletedUser]

How about if the alliance cap were lowered, first to 20, the 10, then 5, then all alliances disbanded? And perhaps this would occur 1 month after the WWs?

 

[DeletedUser8396]

wow, thanks for reviving this idea. I cant believe we let it die.

My view is still the same as it was. I LOVE IT.

 

[DeletedUser]

Yeah I think I was all for an idea like this, it does conflict with the 'When Worlds Collide' concept recently proposed, but that has been rejected... then again that may not stop the proponents from proposing something similar.

 

[DeletedUser20429]

But this isn't merging worlds. Just changing how they end! And so would be a lot easier to implement as BT has mentioned.

 

[DeletedUser11965]

I actually want this.

 

[DeletedUser20429]

Same here. This idea is good and is wayyy better than the WW!

 

[DeletedUser]

But this isn't merging worlds. Just changing how they end! And so would be a lot easier to implement as BT has mentioned.

Changing how a world ends would also apply to older worlds which players want to merge, so it's a clash between one outcome and another.

 

[Baudin Toolan]

So Kappa is ending and nothing new was added to make the ending the least bit interesting. Grepolis could seriously use a decent ending in place of the slow death worlds currently receive. More feedback would be welcome as I hope to re-do this and try to get it voted on so it could be passed on to the Devs.

 

[DeletedUser]

I like it very good idea.

 

[DeletedUser]

+1 from me

 

[DeletedUser]

Hey Guys ~

As a majority of you all are on board for this new end game idea. I will be moving it to Improvements for further discussion.

~ Lane