Deliberation Fixing World Wonder Abuse

DeletedUser31385

Guest
No, what I am saying is an alliance could win and then die out and another rise up and get the award for 7.
 

DeletedUser

Guest
No, what I am saying is an alliance could win and then die out and another rise up and get the award for 7.

Still feels like a punishment to me. It'd mean that if you win Victors first, you'll never be able to get Masters. Seems contradictory.
 

DeletedUser31385

Guest
My idea only allows for one alliance to win each. The alliance that got victors can either die out (someone else wins masters) or go on to win the masters.
 

DeletedUser37793

Guest
I have posted a suggestion for an ammendment to the end-game in the Acropolis.
https://forum.en.grepolis.com/showthread.php?55934-Possible-change-to-End-game
This would remove the abuse mentioned above and provide a clear winner, whilst encouaging everyone to carry on fighting. No Simmer or Turtle alliances could meet the winning conditions fully, only actively fighting alliances.
It seems it is OK to criticise INNO and call for a new end-game without accepting how difficult it is to put into practise. I believe that we all want an end-game which does as it says and provides a conclusion to the game with a clear winner.
The present end-game does not do this, with a world dragging on and on and players dropping out through boredom or wanting a new challenge and dissatisfaction at other alliances being able to wait it out in order to get easy Victor awards.
 

DeletedUser31385

Guest
I have posted a suggestion for an ammendment to the end-game in the Acropolis.
https://forum.en.grepolis.com/showthread.php?55934-Possible-change-to-End-game
This would remove the abuse mentioned above and provide a clear winner, whilst encouaging everyone to carry on fighting. No Simmer or Turtle alliances could meet the winning conditions fully, only actively fighting alliances.
It seems it is OK to criticise INNO and call for a new end-game without accepting how difficult it is to put into practise. I believe that we all want an end-game which does as it says and provides a conclusion to the game with a clear winner.
The present end-game does not do this, with a world dragging on and on and players dropping out through boredom or wanting a new challenge and dissatisfaction at other alliances being able to wait it out in order to get easy Victor awards.

Your idea look excellent and would definitely be a big help.
 

DeletedUser54495

Guest
Please please make this a damn thing. Just don't allow crown sharing. It is dumb. I have seen worlds where half or more of the top 10 alliances share the crown. Every man and his dog has a damn crown now.

The people who are in the alliance at the time of completing the last of 7 wonders ( the FIRST time it is done) should be the only people that get it

Now anyone other than simmers know its true value - nothing.

VICTOR of the world is the only hard bit in wonders. Master of the world is like sloppy seconds for the alliances who weren't good enough to get 4 of 7
 

DeletedUser54192

Guest
I like the idea of locking it down to 1 alliance only for each award. But I do think that it should be possible for an alliance to win the masters of the world award, even if they didn't get the victor award.

Say you're in an alliance that got a slow start to Wonders, for whatever reason, but still managed to build 1-3 wonders. Another alliance gets the Victors award, but your alliance is able to hold the wonders they have made, and eventually break the victor's wonders or beat the victors badly enough in a war that they give up. If we said that only the victor alliance could get the master award, it would make it rather pointless to try and stop them getting the crown, as no-one else would be allowed to get it anyways, and would basically make it pointless to try and break any wonders after someone gets 4. If an alliance has the dedication or skill to stop the victors from becoming the masters, I think they should be able to get the masters award.

So long as you keep it at just 1 alliance getting the crown, you'll knock off the late-game usefulness of academies anyways. You don't need to make the crown only available for those who got the victors award.
 

DeletedUser10295

Guest
[
I I agree with Flame - a new end game would be better.

smiley_emoticons_thumbs-up_new.gif
 

Shuri2060

Strategos
Suggestion: two separate awards. The crown (and it's benefits like 550 temple). Then smthng else with another name for everyone who would've got crown after.
 

Silver Witch

Strategos
I think the concept that the Master of the World can only be won once is a good one.

I see no reason to say that an alliance that wins the Victor can't win both - thats just not logical to me. To win the Victor award takes a huge amount of time and effort from the winning alliance and at that point they are more than halfway to the Masters. Their players will also want a crown.

I do think that this is probably the best way to eliminate the academy abuse.

It stops another alliance just building 7 if the winners leave but i think this will make a crown more valuable. Its possible that there will also be a demoralising effect. Alliances who cannot win first time will have no reason to really try. In the worlds I have played no one except the original winner of Master has ever managed to build 7 but the fact that the possibility exists makes a difference. This could be combatted if there was a tangible long term benefit to building any ww. Doesn't have to be much - say 100 hero coins at the start of next world for each WW completed. At least that provides a reason to try.

I also think that the use of academies does enable less able players to win. Those who advocate eliminating academies are usually the capable and experienced players. There is a risk with this that many players will decide they just can't win and stop trying. This is why its vital that in the event this is implemented there are other incentives brought in simultaneously. If you ask for a vote i wonder how many will really understand the long term repercussions.
 
Last edited:

DeletedUser32254

Guest
Why not just shut down a world when the wonders are completed by one team? Problem solved. Clear winner, deals with the mega pact/crown issue, should be easy enough to do.

Toss in a completely random spawn, even for invites, and we have a whole new game.
 

DeletedUser46695

Guest
Crown sharing defeats the purpose of even having alliance caps so something needs to be done.

Winning a world isn't so special now it's like the top 8 alliances cycle in for the win....yawn
 
Top