Rejected Idea~ Anarchy Worlds

Status
Not open for further replies.

WAVEBREAKER

Guest
Proposal: A new range of Worlds that will furfill the bloodlust that many Grepolis players have to the full, with no alliances, no diplomacy, just plain old simple war.

Reason: I believe many people like Grepolis for many different reasons. Some like the blood and gore, others like the spotless Diplomacy.

I believe that the Conan's among us should have their bloodlust quenched.

Everyone on Everyone, all for themselves.

Details: Unlike normal Worlds, this new range of Worlds, Anarchy Worlds, are Worlds where no formal alliance is allowed, loose message alliances are permitted although frowned upon.

Anarchy Worlds have no formal alliances. And require an Award to enter.

My personal favourite:
Bloodlust
- Kill 10,000 enemy troops
-Conquer 10 cities

Once this Award is obtained the player may enter the Bloodfest and fight to the death with other players.

The devs have the buttons for all the World settings so I am not going comment/recommend any of the World settings, but I think I know which World settings this World would work best for.


Balance:N/A

Abuse Prevention:Only possible abuse informal alliances, however I expect nearly all players will form friendships in game so this would cancel out.

Option 1
Players cannot support other Players. This is only a problem for Conquest Worlds, where I suggest Support being allowed once a CS is sent from a city towards the target city.

Option 2
No action done to prevent unofficial alliances, as these could never exceed a few players, and would not hurt the gameplay too much

Summary: A world where bloodspill is permitted. No Alliances, no diplomacy, just death and destruction.


As per all my ideas I welcome constructive critism/comments but no negative trolling. If you wish to negative troll please make that known at the vote.

Credits go to Condor the Destroyer for aiding in the creation of this idea
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Corinthian II

Guest
I'm fairly neutral to such an idea.

I have a suspicion that those who would succeed are the ones who would form unofficial/informal alliances, and use those alliances to gain an advantage over other players. There is no way to prevent such a thing happening, but such things would totally ruin the potential for a free-for-all world, and thus make it rather pointless to have them at all. Better, perhaps, to simply have worlds with smaller alliance limits - this would allow the 'friendships' ingame to flourish, and cause more players to think for themselves rather than merely go with the flow as part of a large alliance.

I'd probably have to vote no for this, if it came down to it. I'm not strongly against it, I just think that it would be ruined by unofficial alliances forming regardless of the rules and, as a result, am against them being introduced in the first place.
 
well if you make it so you can support one another or co-ordinate attack on the same players,or put certain things in which will make it so they wont form alliances
 

WAVEBREAKER

Guest
I'm fairly neutral to such an idea.

I have a suspicion that those who would succeed are the ones who would form unofficial/informal alliances, and use those alliances to gain an advantage over other players. There is no way to prevent such a thing happening, but such things would totally ruin the potential for a free-for-all world, and thus make it rather pointless to have them at all. Better, perhaps, to simply have worlds with smaller alliance limits - this would allow the 'friendships' ingame to flourish, and cause more players to think for themselves rather than merely go with the flow as part of a large alliance.

I'd probably have to vote no for this, if it came down to it. I'm not strongly against it, I just think that it would be ruined by unofficial alliances forming regardless of the rules and, as a result, am against them being introduced in the first place.
To neutralise this I suggest having no Support function whereby players cannot support another player.

If the World is Conquest I suggest only being able to Support the city after launching a CS attack.

Would you agree that if that was implemented the offset from informal alliances would be neutralised?
 

Corinthian II

Guest
well if you make it so you can support one another or co-ordinate attack on the same players,or put certain things in which will make it so they wont form alliances
There would be no system included that prevents support being sent to other players, because it itself plays a major part of the game as far as dodging attacks is concerned. As for preventing people co-ordinating attacks on other players, that would not be included either because it has greater potential to impact regular gameplay than to prevent players helping each other.

Any system that is implemented will include people who find ways around it to form unofficial alliances. There is no way to prevent that happening, unless it were made a rule. Even in such an instance, it would be impossible to enforce because of the existence of external chat rooms, and the fact that anyone caught co-ordinating could claim it was merely coincidence.
 
i agree but there has to be a way to prevent such alliances forming the whole idea of pvp is be the last one alive,can we make it so you get a prize for attacking players close to you and that prize vary's depending on the amount of units killed in a single day?
 

WAVEBREAKER

Guest
Corinthian what would you suggest?

My personal belief is that PvP should allow unofficial alliances, but due to management issues these unofficial alliances could never exceed 3 players.

Either we have a no support scheme, or we ignore that issue, due to the fact that it is a minor problem which basically all players will probably be a part of.
 

Corinthian II

Guest
Corinthian what would you suggest?

My personal belief is that PvP should allow unofficial alliances, but due to management issues these unofficial alliances could never exceed 3 players.

Either we have a no support scheme, or we ignore that issue, due to the fact that it is a minor problem which basically all players will probably be a part of.
I don't know what you're suggesting here, because there is no way to limit the size of an unofficial alliance. Any group of players can communicate outside Grepolis and act ingame, to co-ordinate their actions. Be it a group of friends who start in the same location, or a group of players who meet each other ingame and decide to work together, anyone can work together regardless of whether or not an official alliance system exists ingame.

I have no suggestion to prevent this, because it's my belief that you cannot prevent people from working together, just by removing the official system that allows them to do so.
 
no make an official alliance of a small amount of players preferably the ones who started out on your island, these players cannot be kicked out for stronger players
 

Corinthian II

Guest
i was just typing that!!!! an alliance consisting of three other members though
So are you suggesting that there is an ingame alliance system, but that it is limited to a low number? It would still not be enough to prevent players working together. There would be multiple alliances (wings, as some people call them), or players who simply don't bother with the alliance system and just communicate outside the game when they need to co-ordinate. As already said, you cannot prevent players from working together, whatever systems are in place.



no make an official alliance of a small amount of players preferably the ones who started out on your island, these players cannot be kicked out for stronger players
If all players on an island are automatically placed in an alliance together, there would be problems.

Who is given what rights? If one person is given leader/founder rights, how is that determined?

What happens if players quit/leave the game? If players from off your island are not allowed, how can the alliance reform?

What happens when conquering onto other islands? Would players be allowed to leave their alliance and join whatever alliance already exists on that island?

etc.

etc.

etc.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

WAVEBREAKER

Guest
I'm sorry Corinthian that was badly worded.

'My personal belief is that PvP should allow unofficial alliances, but due to management issues these unofficial alliances could never exceed 3 players.'

In my world translates to:

I believe that Anarchy Worlds should have unofficial alliances, but due to no Alliance Forum etc. they could never exceed a few players.

I believe that whatever system is put in place, people will always work together, as is human nature.

This should be allowed, but not encouraged.
 
i suppose,what if you cant communicate externally with foreign alliances (and by that i don't mean country)you choose a few people to join an alliance you make but max is 4players including you,
 
once alliance maxed players it can no longer communicate with other players, a time limit is given to join an alliance or fill up the alliance, from then on they can only communicate via forums?
 

WAVEBREAKER

Guest
Ummm no communication would be a bit drastic.

In my opinion that would be boring, not being able to talk to people...
 

Corinthian II

Guest
I'm sorry Corinthian that was badly worded.

'My personal belief is that PvP should allow unofficial alliances, but due to management issues these unofficial alliances could never exceed 3 players.'

In my world translates to:

I believe that Anarchy Worlds should have unofficial alliances, but due to no Alliance Forum etc. they could never exceed a few players.

I believe that whatever system is put in place, people will always work together, as is human nature.

This should be allowed, but not encouraged.

I am still having difficulty understanding what you mean.

If you mean that it would have an alliance system ingame, that's an official alliance. When I say 'unofficial' alliance I mean a group of players who are not within any official alliance system, but communicate and co-ordinate their actions.

Either way, there will be no limits. The alliance forum is not what limits the player count. I have played with alliances that have as many as 30+ players, but never use their alliance forum.. if players are active, it is as easy as using an external chat site/program, and communicating there. It is, in my opinion, simpler that way because you can be sure that you know what happens as it happens, but at the same time you can be chatting with other alliance members.

This is all, obviously, just my opinion. Perhaps worlds will form and everyone will play on their own, but I cannot believe that it will happen. Grepolis is, and always will be, a very social game. That is one of the most important aspects of the game, to get to know other players and to fight together. While I think PvP worlds are a good idea in theory, I do not think it would work in a game such as Grepolis.

I know that connor the destroyer used Runescape as an example of PvP worlds succeeding, but they are very different games. In Runescape, PvP worlds succeed because they are limited to 1v1 combat. Cool downs after player attacks prevent players from working together to defeat other players, and that keeps the 1v1 restriction in place. In Grepolis you cannot have such restrictions. You could not prevent a player being attacked by more than one player, for example, because if such a system existed it would be abused by players constantly sending small attacks at each other to prevent other attacks.





i suppose,what if you cant communicate externally with foreign alliances (and by that i don't mean country)you choose a few people to join an alliance you make but max is 4players including you,
once alliance maxed players it can no longer communicate with other players, a time limit is given to join an alliance or fill up the alliance, from then on they can only communicate via forums?

Communication restrictions ingame will never prevent alliances forming. The majority of good/experienced players communicate outside of the game anyway, using external chat sites/programs, so if you limited ingame communication all that would happen is groups of players who communicate elsewhere would dominate from the start.

For example:

Player A is inexperienced, and does not know of external chat features available. He forms an alliance with Player B, who is also inexperienced. They play the game as intended, in a small alliance actively hitting others.

Player C is experienced and uses external chat features to communicate with Players D, E and F. The four of them communicate externally to co-ordinate attacks, and use this advantage to destroy Players A and B.

It is a totally imbalanced system and, in my opinion, would never be introduced because it encourages players to use external chat sites (not something that Innogames want to encourage).
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Status
Not open for further replies.