Rejected Idea~ Anarchy Worlds

Status
Not open for further replies.

Corinthian II

Guest
If worlds had specific rewards for winning, and lasted a short time, there would certainly be an incentive for players to go it alone and see who comes out on top. It would still have issues with unofficial alliances, though, just like any other idea that includes a lack of alliances.
 

DeletedUser8396

Guest
not a fan of this one...i like my alliance...

i will +rep for thoughts and effort tho

**EDIT** DANG IT!!! Second time it has said I must spread rep around...grrr...
 
Last edited by a moderator:

DeletedUser24661

Guest
but there isnt a way to stop them talking to each other so friendships will form just like any other game out there its an enigma
 

Kanga

Guest
Was Pm'ing with OP, and he asked me to post this.

Kanga said:
I think in a PvP world, alliances would be allowed, but then you could never leave/change alliances... Maybe you could even be allocated a faction to which you can't leave. Each faction attacks each other, and the faction that is left behind is declared the winner. (If you use this in a post, please mention that you talked to me about it) . With factions, it would be impossible to create alliances, but you'd still be in teams.

=/
 

Corinthian II

Guest
Was Pm'ing with OP, and he asked me to post this.

I think in a PvP world, alliances would be allowed, but then you could never leave/change alliances... Maybe you could even be allocated a faction to which you can't leave. Each faction attacks each other, and the faction that is left behind is declared the winner. (If you use this in a post, please mention that you talked to me about it) . With factions, it would be impossible to create alliances, but you'd still be in teams.

=/



The faction idea does not follow with the free-for-all scheme.. it is basically a copy of another of WAVEBREAKER's ideas, here. While a good idea, it isn't entirely relevant here.



Being unable to leave/change alliances has many problems in itself.

If new players are unaware, they may join an alliance and then be unable to leave. They may not wish to be part of that alliance but would be stuck there and, as a result, their game would be significantly less fun.

If an alliance becomes partially inactive, or many members quit, the remaining members are stuck in a weak alliance unable to leave. Other players would already have joined alliances, so their alliance would fall because of the inactivity of others, not because of their own skill.

If an alliance's founder/leader becomes inactive/quits, remaining members are unable to make changes and unable to leave to join/found another alliance. They will have the same problem as the previous, failing due to the inactivity of others rather than their own skill.

If an alliance still has the disbanding feature the "no leaving/changing alliances" feature would be abused, by players disbanding an alliance when they wish to move on. Over time, in such a close atmosphere, it would be simple to gain leader privileges and so to do so would be no stretch, even if the original founder did not wish it.

etc.

etc.

etc.
 

WAVEBREAKER

Guest
Yeah having fixed alliances would not be a very good idea.

It would be kind of weird and wouldn't suit Grepolis.

I feel that this idea is a free-for-all idea, which Corinthian has pointed out as well, and I wish to stick to the free-for-all idea.

This thread is for the development of this idea.
 

DeletedUser24661

Guest
i knooo but he picks so many faults with suggestions and its hard to come up with solutions, i thought kanga's idea was quite good...
coming up with idea's to fix a problem and the continuously rejected is rather annoying if i do say so my self
 

Corinthian II

Guest
i knooo but he picks so many faults with suggestions and its hard to come up with solutions, i thought kanga's idea was quite good...
coming up with idea's to fix a problem and the continuously rejected is rather annoying if i do say so my self

Someone has to point out the faults, it just happens to be me.

I don't mean to be annoying, or to cause offence, so I will stop pointing out problems if I am asked to. I simply want you to remember that for an idea to succeed you have to be able to recognise problems and deal with them, rather than simply crossing your fingers and hoping that problems don't arise.
 

WAVEBREAKER

Guest
I believe in critism.

Ideas that are not subject to critism always have room for improvement
Ideas that are subject to critism are either ripped to shreds, or improved to their best possible form.

However I believe that we are overcomplicating things.

The idea is~ A PvP world where there are no alliances.

The Problem is~ Informal alliances

My solution is have a requirement for entry, and give the players no choice in the direction they get placed in. They get scattered randomnly which destroys Pre-Mades.

Also these bloodthirsty players will join the World for blood, and therefore won't have time for diplomacy and making friends.

Also making the World a speed world which makes everything happen quicker, which would in my opinion result in mass anarchy.
 

Corinthian II

Guest
I believe in critism.

Ideas that are not subject to critism always have room for improvement
Ideas that are subject to critism are either ripped to shreds, or improved to their best possible form.

However I believe that we are overcomplicating things.

The idea is~ A PvP world where there are no alliances.

The Problem is~ Informal alliances

My solution is have a requirement for entry, and give the players no choice in the direction they get placed in. They get scattered randomnly which destroys Pre-Mades.(1)

Also these bloodthirsty players will join the World for blood, and therefore won't have time for diplomacy and making friends.(2)

Also making the World a speed world which makes everything happen quicker, which would in my opinion result in mass anarchy.(3)

3 more issues arise.

With 1, any pre-planned unofficial alliances would make use of the island invitation system to cluster together, and thus would be able to avoid problems caused by a lack of direction. To avoid this Innogames would have to remove the Invitation system, which is possible but highly unlikely to ever happen, no matter how specialized the world.

With 2, you are relying too much on humans to act as you expect them to. It's a game like any other, so players will play to win, not just to fight. In order to win, it seems clear that some alliances must be formed, so thus diplomacy will happen regardless of ingame alliance systems.

With 3, same as #2. You rely too much on predicted human nature being correct, by assuming that a high speed would result in 'mass anarchy'. While it is true that a high speed generally results in more fighting, it will also encourage players to work together because they may find themselves unable to cope on their own. The speed will likely not change human behaviour much, because no matter how fast it runs the fight will always be 'the player' against 'everyone else'. As shown over and over again, in previous games and previous worlds for this game, people put in this situation will ally together and co-ordinate, in order to slightly even the odds.
 

WAVEBREAKER

Guest
So your saying that an Anarchy World is unlikely to result in an Anarchy world due to the fact that we play to win?

Which is a statement I completely agree with, however I believe that this idea has promise, and some compromise can be reached so that Anarchy Worlds are both bloody and alliance free.

The invitation is not an issue as players require an Award to enter the world, and cannot enter as a new player through an invite. Which means that InnoGames has no benefit in placing the Invite system on Anarchy Worlds. Which in my opinion should result in all invites being scattered randomly across the World, instead of strategic placing.
 

Corinthian II

Guest
So your saying that an Anarchy World is unlikely to result in an Anarchy world due to the fact that we play to win?

Which is a statement I completely agree with, however I believe that this idea has promise, and some compromise can be reached so that Anarchy Worlds are both bloody and alliance free.

The invitation is not an issue as players require an Award to enter the world, and cannot enter as a new player through an invite. Which means that InnoGames has no benefit in placing the Invite system on Anarchy Worlds. Which in my opinion should result in all invites being scattered randomly across the World, instead of strategic placing.


Personally, I am still of the opinion that having a requirement to enter would not be a good thing. Plus, given that Hero Worlds have already been released so recently with a requirement for access, it is highly unlikely that additional worlds with alternate rule sets would be added with further requirements to enter. That's why I assumed an open invite system when responding to the random direction point.
 

DeletedUser24661

Guest
the whole idea of anarchy and pvp worlds is to conquer and battle if you join a world hoping to make friends and alliances then its not the world for you i cannot stress enough no matter how many times i revolves around unofficial alliances it is not the aim of the game type, in this world you shouldn't be making alliances or friends because the aim is to win and be the best, it doesn't matter if they work together to try and win at the end of the day we cannot stop them and if the aim is to be number one they wont want to help the unofficial alliance member win, human behavior indicates that there is no guarantee they will work together although endeavors maybe easier there will still be a hunger for blood and stuff so if you join hoping for friendship you should not enter the world...and your response will be something along the lines of:human behavior, opposite, working together to be number one
etc
etc
etc
etc

but no body plays a game to lose do they?
they play it to win, succeed, and do a little dance to go with we are the "champions you are the losers" song, i guarantee that whom ever joins will play to win not work together, ingame ive asked a couple people on what there views are they claim it would not only be better but more fun!
 

Corinthian II

Guest
the whole idea of anarchy and pvp worlds is to conquer and battle if you join a world hoping to make friends and alliances then its not the world for you i cannot stress enough no matter how many times i revolves around unofficial alliances it is not the aim of the game type, in this world you shouldn't be making alliances or friends because the aim is to win and be the best, it doesn't matter if they work together to try and win at the end of the day we cannot stop them and if the aim is to be number one they wont want to help the unofficial alliance member win, human behavior indicates that there is no guarantee they will work together although endeavors maybe easier there will still be a hunger for blood and stuff so if you join hoping for friendship you should not enter the world...and your response will be something along the lines of:human behavior, opposite, working together to be number one
etc
etc
etc
etc

but no body plays a game to lose do they?
they play it to win, succeed, and do a little dance to go with we are the "champions you are the losers" song, i guarantee that whom ever joins will play to win not work together, ingame ive asked a couple people on what there views are they claim it would not only be better but more fun!


Your post is full of rather silly points, frankly. I've highlighted several and will try to work through them.



You say things like "they shouldn't do this", or "it doesn't matter if they do that", but this is the wrong attitude. Whether or not someone shouldn't do something is irrelevant. Players shouldn't break the rules, but you don't ignore the fact that it is easy to do so - no, you put systems in place to prevent them from breaking the rules in the first place. If you want this idea to succeed, you cannot say that anything "doesn't matter", because every little detail matters, now matter how small it is and no matter how irrelevant you think it may be. If you don't consider everything, your idea will bellyflop. That's simple and the sooner you accept it the better.

My responses are the same each time for a reason: You are not providing any accurate or realistic counter-argument to the issues that I have pointed out. You continue to suggest more and more ideas, but none of them actually solve any basic issues. I am trying to bring them to your attention so you can deal with them, but instead you soldier on and try to claim that they don't matter, and that people "shouldn't" do it. It's nonsense.

Playing to win and working together are two parts of the game that are not mutually exclusive. To win in a world such as you have suggested, co-operation between players would be essential. No player can take on the world alone, and anyone who grows significantly more than anyone else will promptly be taken down. In a world such as you have suggested, it will not be so straight-forward as "Everyone fights until one person is left". It is far more complex than that, and you need to understand that before you can hope to deal with the issues I am pointing out.


I am not trying to be offensive. I am not trying to be annoying. I am not trying to destroy this idea. I am trying to help, by pointing out the flaws and giving you a chance to deal with them before they come about later on in the course of this idea. If you do not want my help, so be it, but do not expect the problems to disappear just because someone stops pointing them out.
 

DeletedUser24661

Guest
i know your helping but discouraging the idea's and pointing out every flaw with the solution is annoying no matter how much appreciated your contribution and help is being its never going to not be annoying knowing that all your idea's and expectations towards players is wrong lool

another solution

smaller world
faster game speed
lower cost's of units
lower level technology(conquest ans CS become available earlier in the game)
world life shortened

hopefully this will encourage people to conquer more and not be as friendly with one another, whats your criticism?
 

Corinthian II

Guest
i know your helping but discouraging the idea's and pointing out every flaw with the solution is annoying no matter how much appreciated your contribution and help is being its never going to not be annoying knowing that all your idea's and expectations towards players is wrong lool

another solution

smaller world
faster game speed
lower cost's of units
lower level technology(conquest ans CS become available earlier in the game)
world life shortened

hopefully this will encourage people to conquer more and not be as friendly with one another, whats your criticism?


You say "world life shortened", which implies either a time limit on the length of the world or easily reachable victory criteria. What's the end-game? If it's still 'last man standing', how can you guarantee that the world life will be shorter?

Remember that by increasing the rate at which a player can be destroyed (faster speed, earlier CS, etc), you are also increasing the rate at which he can expand. The regular Grepolis end-game is based around simming World Wonders primarily (in my opinion) due to the fact that once a certain point has been reached it is near impossible to totally destroy another player. Especially in a free-for-all environment where there will be no shortage of potential targets, you could conquer one city from a player, but in the meantime he has conquered two from other players.

Assuming you are still referring to a 'last man standing' style end-game, I have a couple of questions for you.. how many players have you, by yourself, totally eliminated from the game? If any, were they early in the game or late in the game? How many cities did they have to begin with? Even early in the game, with no rapid re-building available, eliminating another player is difficult. Later in a game it becomes near impossible.
 

DeletedUser24661

Guest
erm...

a player can start conquering when he/she has researched conquer but like other world you shall have beginners protection but due to entering late you may have extended protection in order to protect your self when you "go on the market" so to speak, and following up to your question how many players i have conquered? no that many, due to me settling near alliance members i have not had time for conquer but i have conquered i think 3 cities in a single world from starting the rest i have colonized, i had no help securing these citys although an attempt was made to aid my conquer which resulted in it failing due to a mistake i made but i did not conquer that city after but moved onto another 10k city and im not sure how long they had been in but judging by the city size im guessing the same time, and in the last man standing game mode due to chaos and limited space etc. players may be pressured into attacking the weakest there in an atempt to secure the most city's to expand an empire, so if one person is getting conquered left right and center by many players it souldnt be that hard to totally wipe them out of the game, due to the game mode, it will be impossible to wipe every one out due to the vast amount of citys they have so if we limit the time in which the world is open we could just declare the victor the one who gains the most city?
 

Corinthian II

Guest
erm...

a player can start conquering when he/she has researched conquer but like other world you shall have beginners protection but due to entering late you may have extended protection in order to protect your self when you "go on the market" so to speak, and following up to your question how many players i have conquered? no that many, due to me settling near alliance members i have not had time for conquer but i have conquered i think 3 cities in a single world from starting the rest i have colonized, i had no help securing these citys although an attempt was made to aid my conquer which resulted in it failing due to a mistake i made but i did not conquer that city after but moved onto another 10k city and im not sure how long they had been in but judging by the city size im guessing the same time, and in the last man standing game mode due to chaos and limited space etc. players may be pressured into attacking the weakest there in an atempt to secure the most city's to expand an empire, so if one person is getting conquered left right and center by many players it souldnt be that hard to totally wipe them out of the game, due to the game mode, it will be impossible to wipe every one out due to the vast amount of citys they have so if we limit the time in which the world is open we could just declare the victor the one who gains the most city?


Having conquest available earlier does not ensure the world is shorter. If anything, it would prolong a world by allowing players to grow faster. From the sounds of your conquering experience, well, you don't have much conquering experience. With that in mind, I will pick up on your comment "if one person is getting conquered left right and center by many players it souldnt be that hard to totally wipe them out of the game". Considering the high speed and easier access to Conquest, that you have described, it would take but a short time for players to have 10's of cities, and likely not more than a few months for the first players to be reaching ~100 cities. For a player with that many cities to be eliminated from the game, the co-ordination required between the attacking players would be huge. So, with the settings you describe and the victory conditions you suggest, you are actually encouraging unofficial alliances to form. And, yes, I'm sounding like a scratched record repeating the same point, but in this case it's relevant because the suggestion isn't even discouraging them from forming, quite the opposite.

If you are limiting the time of the world, it seems obvious that the world will not be a permanent feature. If it is has a time limit, how would that time limit be decided? What would happen when the time limit is reached? Would there be any sort of in-game countdown near the end? Would there be rewards for the winners? Would the world simply close after the time limit is reached, or would it reset and start again? If the latter, what motivation is there for players to play these worlds and invest their time/money in them only to have it all lost when the world resets? Even if rewards were there for the top players, there is still a rather 'empty' feeling for the majority of players who may go there looking for something new. Would the winners have permanent bonuses (similar to those acquired in Hero Worlds for completion of World Wonders in regular worlds)? If yes, what would they be, who would receive them and how much would they affect the game - would they impact all worlds, only these worlds, these worlds and hero worlds? If the world resets and starts again, would the bonuses for previous winners be there every time it resets? If the same person wins multiple times, would bonuses stack? If yes, how would you prevent this causing unfair advantages, so that the same person wins over and over again, thanks to victory bonuses? etc. etc. etc.
 

DeletedUser24661

Guest
dude i dont have all the answers and i cant think of solutions that will end it all but a game is supposed to be fun...no? people enjoy the gamemode of pvp and creating alliances to bring down the guy at top is something we cannot prevent as communication is a vital part in grepolis, if they wish to talk and create these unofficial alliances i cannot think of a way to prevent them suggesting "hmmm that guy is the best lets work together on this one", although people have looked at this thread all it is, is me and you arguing over failed solutions all that happens is i suggest an idea an idea and you pick out the faults over and over meaning that it was a stupid idea,
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top