Grepolis Roadmap 2014 Discussion Thread

Selecues

Phrourach
Fact is WW is the thing that ruins the game....
it is a mass simming game these days. with you being able to swap players round for ruler of the world reward you find more and more sister/brother/mother/ best friends dogs vets sister alliances.

they game needs massive format changes the way alliances work and the reason for them....
the way wonders are done....
its the trolls that have the most fun in this game atm.
Just imagine the possibilities of the endgame being badass and they choose world wonders...
 

TheCult

Guest
The idea of World Wonders isn't necessarily all that bad, it was just badly implemented, ie. instead of resources, BP could be used to level WWs.

then youd just see alliances BP farming in there own alliance for there WW. would make it even worse imo.
 

dimspace

Phrourach
Fact is WW is the thing that ruins the game....
it is a mass simming game these days. with you being able to swap players round for ruler of the world reward you find more and more sister/brother/mother/ best friends dogs vets sister alliances.

they game needs massive format changes the way alliances work and the reason for them....
.
this is the biggest problem. worlds are just becoming a mass of sister, brother, cousin, parent, children alliances.

The simple short term solution is ban all alliance transfers at a certain point in the game, certainly before or at the start of world wonder phase, so this stupid rotation lark cant go on.

En81 which promised so much has turned into an utter farce, so many sister and brother alliances, naps and pacts all over the place it takes a day to figure out what the latest political map of the world is, even alliances that swore they would not have any affiliated alliances have ended up with multiple sisters.
 

cloaca maxima

Guest
This seemed like the most relevant thread. Saw the recent post about Advisors graphics changes, and have something to say.

While we appreciate the hardwork you (the dev team) are putting into the game and trying to keep it interesting for players, honestly, you must reconsider your priorities.

Grepolis is a war strategy game, which needs understanding of battle tactics, etc. However, recent changes have honestly, been redundant. No one is bothered about how your advisors look. They provide benefits which are useful in-game, thats all. There are several other more serious issues which needs addressing, including WW revamp (we have been promised that for 2 years now), the release of new servers, and implementing community suggested features. However, we are getting things like improved graphics and animation, gold trading/instant buy (which honestly, is not very useful).

Due to recent changes being implemented, Grepolis is losing quality players faster than it is gaining, and is thus, dying out. I humbly request the team, if you are reading this, please think about it.

Thank you.
Many of the best players I know, who have played for 3-5 years, are losing interest. The biggest reason is the WW system. People play this game because it is interesting and entertaining. When they no longer find that interest and entertainment here, there are a LOT of other games competing for their time.

INNO-PLEASE find some new system to replace WWs before it is too late.

(And I agree-updating graphics for advisors is like giving a band-aid to a cancer patient. Who cares? Address the real underlying problem, please.)
 

Selecues

Phrourach
Yes there are other things i could do with my time, grepolis is a fun game because of the people that you know throughout your game experience, the gameplay can always get better. I wish they did more community based decisions instead of wallet decisions. If you create a more enjoyable game then people will pay. If you create a stupid game then people will not want to give you money to make it stupider.
 

Selecues

Phrourach
Nah inno thinks offering shiny new advisors will hopefully make you buy shiny(gold) more important than the gameplay.
 

SparkyVr.

Chiliarch
Why not remove Wonders? Put a domination map instead, the first alliance to dominate X% of the map wins.
WWs are ok...Not great but ok..Have their pros and cons imo but dont want to go into them now. However, your proposition kinda tickled my attention. But would like if you could elaborate a bit more. And I do plan on keeping it short and simple but cant promise..Already I have like gazillion questions as I type this so appologies in advance. :)

Let's start with DEFINITION What is a domination map? If I understand correctly, and again it's just my interpretation of your proposal, you're thinkink that instead of an alliance building wonders, in order for them to win they would have to conquer certain percentage of the world right? Like having 20,30, 17% of the map under their arms..Once that is done then that's it, they win. Questions I have are as follows...In current worlds set ups I think that's impossible. Simple as that. Grepo would have to change the entire concept of worlds (number of oceans to be precise) I have spent last 10-15 min shuffling through stats of all closed and active worlds..Couldnt find a single world where a winning or current top alliance owns(ed) more than 5-6 oceans.. And even that is almoust impossible..So let's say that average is 4 oceans, that.s some 4% of the world..Add to that random cities that would also be included as ALIIANCE teritory we come to some 5-6 percent of the world that a single alliance can own..So we would be talking in terms of settings, that these new implementation would be starting from let's say 10% required at start and then be downsized as time passes by. Which puts us back to yet another question, IS THE DOMINATE MAP REQUIREMENT A FIXED ONE OR IT WILL DROP AS SERVER PASSES BY?

CONCLUSION| Current world set ups with oceans 0-99 simply doesnt allow the possibility for implementation of your idea..Grepo would have to change few things, make for ex. that one CP values 3 new cities (maybe even 5), downsize the number of available oceans to like 40-50 max (even that is wayyyy to much imo), open rim from the start, put a cap at least 300 (makes me sick to even type that :),etc,etc.

Let's now focus on the actual process. Again I'm still not sure wheater you think the percentage would be determined from the start and fixed (like in order for an alliance to win they would have to own 10% of the world Sparky blah bla blah) or it will be downsized with appropriate changes of the world (like WW era aproximativity at this point). I will stick to the fixed scenario for now.

The question I have is this. Will the required percentage be needed for a quick moment or an alliance would have to maintain it for a certain ammount of time? Like week, 2 weeks, a month? Again both scenarios can produce different outcomes in game in terms of possibility that an alliance who has been the top one, who has slaughtered all others eventually losses simply because 2nd and 3rd merged. SImple as that.. They keep doing their thing, chasing more and more territory an one friday they just get the message "The world Sparky has been conquered by 2nd and 3rd alliance that merged :) Imagine how ty that would be.. So I'm quessing that you're thinking that once an alliance manages to obtain a certain percentage of the world they have to hold it for some time. Correct me if I'm wrong though.

I tried to keep it short in here (yeah right) If this thread becomes active I have few more opinions and questions I could throw...For now dont want to bother you..You may start to hate me and just search me in every world to rim my a@$ just cause I made you read this :)))
 

bend24

Strategos
So here we are halfway through 2015 and most of these changes that were supposed to be done in 2014 have not been implemented. A new endgame was first supposed to be implemented all the way back in 2013, it has become pretty clear inno no longer cares about improving grepo and is going to let it die its slow painful death. A bit sad really, but I suppose they are onto projects which are possibly making them more money. Would love to see them come up with a new game that is similar in nature to grepo, except without the ability to buy your way up the leaderboards of course.
 

figtree2

Polemarch
So here we are halfway through 2015 and most of these changes that were supposed to be done in 2014 have not been implemented. A new endgame was first supposed to be implemented all the way back in 2013, it has become pretty clear inno no longer cares about improving grepo and is going to let it die its slow painful death. A bit sad really, but I suppose they are onto projects which are possibly making them more money. Would love to see them come up with a new game that is similar in nature to grepo, except without the ability to buy your way up the leaderboards of course.
I do agree with limiting use of premium. You can use it on everything now. I remember when Inno said they would never give the advantage to the premium buyers, but they lied. They haven't given up on Grepolis though. They are actually wanting to make some big changes, but have a hard time thinking of what should we add.
 

figtree2

Polemarch
So here we are halfway through 2015 and most of these changes that were supposed to be done in 2014 have not been implemented. A new endgame was first supposed to be implemented all the way back in 2013, it has become pretty clear inno no longer cares about improving grepo and is going to let it die its slow painful death. A bit sad really, but I suppose they are onto projects which are possibly making them more money. Would love to see them come up with a new game that is similar in nature to grepo, except without the ability to buy your way up the leaderboards of course.
I do agree with limiting use of premium. You can use it on everything now. I remember when Inno said they would never give the advantage to the premium buyers, but they lied. They haven't given up on Grepolis though. They are actually wanting to make some big changes, but have a hard time thinking of what should we add.