Wish List Endgame alternative

  • Thread starter DeletedUser17088
  • Start date

DeletedUser17088

Guest
Supremacy/Domination

after the world hits the same requirements as the current WW's do the endgame switches to Supremacy/Domination

Victory Conditions

Alliance Controls x% of the Servers cities (I was thinking as an example 80% of total active cities 5k+Polis Points) for at least a month.

Now you are truly worthy of the title 'Victor' and 'Ruler' of the world

Balance

Your roster cannot experience a change of more than +/- 20% members for a whole month (100 allliance cap = 20 alliance changes) and this means total changes so someone leaving and joining on the same day = 2 changes, stopping alliances from mass recruiting/Mass Merging/rotating members to be dominant.

If your alliance hits a 21% alliance change amount, the month countdown starts again. You will really need to have the best and most loyal players to win, Thus ending the simtastic lifestyle.

Ghost cities are not counted as active (player controlled)
Banned Players are not counted as active


Visual aid

Where the 'World Wonder' stat currently resides it will be replaced with 'Supremacy' or 'Dominance' with a % stat of what alliance controls which size of the server.




or you can keep playing WW's i guess
 

DeletedUser

Guest
Another worthy entry to the list of better alternatives to WW endgame.

This one is better than many of the dozens of others that have been submitted.

But as somebody said above, don't hold your breath.
 

DeletedUser

Guest
Why not look to games like Civ 5 for a bit of inspiration - have worlds with different endgames. A victory in a 'endgame: culture' would be with the current WW's, a victory in 'endgame: domination' would be shaped to the above suggestion. I'm sure you could add a third endgame too, with a bit of effort.
 

DeletedUser41652

Guest
+1 = love it

Love It Jack, Like you said! Get Rid Of The "SIMTASTIC LIFESTYLE".

+1 Rep!
 

Ranga1

Strategos
Given Inno's ineptness at even getting the farming trades right, this is way too difficult for them. The answer to the end game is simple, just don't award the crown to more than one alliance.
 

DeletedUser

Guest
just don't award the crown to more than one alliance.

Agree with this. I have been in worlds where 6-8 months after first set of winners left, other alliances are still cranking out new crowns. How foolish.
 

DeletedUser46395

Guest
Given Inno's ineptness at even getting the farming trades right, this is way too difficult for them. The answer to the end game is simple, just don't award the crown to more than one alliance.

Doesn't solve the problem of WWs being soooooooo boring, though.

I like this new idea, but it'll need to be well under 80% for most worlds or it will never end.
 

DeletedUser

Guest
This idea is brilliant, I love it. It will definitely make the game much more rewarding + more competitive.

Simply a great idea and I think Inno should definitely consider it. A LOT of people hate WW, and I don't blame them, fighting is waaaay more fun than building a building... Just saying.
 

DeletedUser25249

Guest
I think the balance is 100% spot on, the victory conditions however will be tricky due to different settings to servers, if some simple formula can be arranged where all settings get winnable outcome then yeah im liking this idea. What happens to the benefits from our current ww's, or is it just a slug fest and winner takes all honors after the 1 month?
 

DeletedUser42565

Guest
I just had a wee idea on the WW.

Instead of building several wonders, each alliance would only build one, but the levels and points required be either much higher., or just one big build with a maximum amount of resource being able to be applied in a 24 hr basis. (this could stop loads of alliances "teaming" up for WW)

conditions for building a wonder:-

alliance must of course own all cities on the chosen island,
alliances must also:-
have full control over 10 other islands.
must have existed for 2 months.
If any of the 10 island loses a city production will be suspended until the alliance has control of 10 islands once more.
If the island containing the wonder losses a city production would be stopped until the island is safe again. ( a thought also is if alliance still has 10 islands it can start a new one with old one destroyed.)


conditions for booster:-
to gain booster credits alliances are going to have to conquer more cities than they have lost. The count would be taken weekly/ every four days, so could work something like this,
at the end of the week/four days your alliance has taken 8 more cities than lost, they would gain say 800 points (100 X 8 cities) this would be banked, with a limit set at 1500 credits needed for the boost.

the boost would give you a 24 hr boost so you could get a day ahead, and push folks into continuing fighting and not simming the end out.

i think this is a good idea to make the alliance you have been in the whole time mean a bit more and a lot less likely to be swapping around to collect crown's, three crowns could be done here too, gold silver and bronze.

Quite like the other idea, but perhaps 80% is a bit high.
 

DeletedUser31385

Guest
I just had a wee idea on the WW.

Instead of building several wonders, each alliance would only build one, but the levels and points required be either much higher., or just one big build with a maximum amount of resource being able to be applied in a 24 hr basis. (this could stop loads of alliances "teaming" up for WW)

conditions for building a wonder:-

alliance must of course own all cities on the chosen island,
alliances must also:-
have full control over 10 other islands.
must have existed for 2 months.
If any of the 10 island loses a city production will be suspended until the alliance has control of 10 islands once more.
If the island containing the wonder losses a city production would be stopped until the island is safe again. ( a thought also is if alliance still has 10 islands it can start a new one with old one destroyed.)


conditions for booster:-
to gain booster credits alliances are going to have to conquer more cities than they have lost. The count would be taken weekly/ every four days, so could work something like this,
at the end of the week/four days your alliance has taken 8 more cities than lost, they would gain say 800 points (100 X 8 cities) this would be banked, with a limit set at 1500 credits needed for the boost.

the boost would give you a 24 hr boost so you could get a day ahead, and push folks into continuing fighting and not simming the end out.

i think this is a good idea to make the alliance you have been in the whole time mean a bit more and a lot less likely to be swapping around to collect crown's, three crowns could be done here too, gold silver and bronze.

Quite like the other idea, but perhaps 80% is a bit high.

Definitely sounds more interesting than current WWs. Maybe make a requirement for islands. Possibly have it where 3/10 islands must have farms on them. If that seems to be a bad number, feel free to change.
 

DeletedUser

Guest
Supremacy/Domination

after the world hits the same requirements as the current WW's do the endgame switches to Supremacy/Domination

Victory Conditions

Alliance Controls x% of the Servers cities (I was thinking as an example 80% of total active cities 5k+Polis Points) for at least a month.

Now you are truly worthy of the title 'Victor' and 'Ruler' of the world

Balance

Your roster cannot experience a change of more than +/- 20% members for a whole month (100 allliance cap = 20 alliance changes) and this means total changes so someone leaving and joining on the same day = 2 changes, stopping alliances from mass recruiting/Mass Merging/rotating members to be dominant.

If your alliance hits a 21% alliance change amount, the month countdown starts again. You will really need to have the best and most loyal players to win, Thus ending the simtastic lifestyle.

Ghost cities are not counted as active (player controlled)
Banned Players are not counted as active


Visual aid

Where the 'World Wonder' stat currently resides it will be replaced with 'Supremacy' or 'Dominance' with a % stat of what alliance controls which size of the server.




or you can keep playing WW's i guess

After all, we spend most of the game making our empire bigger - one way or another. And considering the biggest empire is the best looks pretty natural.

But it also induces some game changes:
- The biggest players will be looked for, but they're not always the best team players. Some are so selfishly focused on their own expansion they don't even mind opening PMs. Here they would be all OK with it.
- Alliances will grab points everywhere they can, and most will get spread out. Due to distance, there won't be much place for team play.

80% of the Server cities is too high, I think. In almost all servers, it could only be reached through a massive merge of biggest players between them near the end, then wait a month - maybe not the kind of end you wish.
Looking at a sample world where 1st ranked alliance is far ahead (Rhammus, EN80): 1st alliance is almost twice the size of 2nd, still, from rough count, they own less than 30% of the cities (and I don't count players without alliance).
I'd suggest 50% instead, with a high membership limit (at least 500). Could make the world like 2 blocks, and give some interest in a competition for central oceans.

Still, I think it could fit some players, and should be rather cheap to implement. Maybe Inno could give this a try, naming it "Pure conquest world" for example, and see how it turns.
 
Top