Passed Idea~ Grepolis Ultimate War

[DeletedUser]

Proposal- When a player joins this World, they are automatically put into a select group.

Either
1- Spartans
2- Athenians
3- Macedonians (or Wavebreakians )

Battle Protection prevents anyone attacking anyone until every side has at least 5,000 players in it.

Once every side has 5,000 players the Battle Protection comes down and all hell breaks loose.

Reason- To make a new interesting World.

Details- Players are randomly placed in 3 groups (see above).

Spoiler

Say Spartans: NW
Athenians: SW
Macedonians: NE
Corinthians: SE

Each direction will have a miaximum of 5000 players. Once one position is filled(say SW), the only directions left will be NW, NE, and SE.

(Or randomly scrambled)

Once in the groups players can create sub-alliances, with only players in their group allowed entry. The World would function as usual, apart from WW features.

Spoiler

There could, potentially, be some kind of world scoreboard. This would record cities conquered, lost and total gains (conquers minus losses) for the three groups. A winning condition could then be included as a certain number of conquers or total cities gained. Perhaps 1000 gains, or 10000 conquers, or something else along those lines.

This would keep the contest between the groups, and would show which has supremacy.

Were this to be the case there could be an individual scoreboard for each side showing which players had conquered the most, lost the most, gained the most ABP, DBP, etc.

Conquering players on the same 'side' as you could be allowed, but it would not count towards the conquest total. This would prevent the conquest of inactives/ghosts from affecting the scores.

The winners of the World would be the group that wins overall.

Balance- Like a normal World, apart from everyone has a lot of enemies.

Summary- A new kind of World that would result in mass war! And no stupid boring diplomacy.


As per all my ideas, I welcome critism, however no negative trolling with 'I don like it'

 

[DeletedUser]

WAVEBREAKER!! I dont know man, but you seem to be bursting at the seams with good ideas! Its like finding a spring in the oasis! I love it!

 

[DeletedUser]

WAVEBREAKER!! I dont know man, but you seem to be bursting at the seams with good ideas! Its like finding a spring in the oasis! I love it!

Haha thanks man

 

[DeletedUser]

Suggested before. Got knocked back.

Nice thought, difficult to maintain and setup though.

 

[DeletedUser15100]

Spartans are Greeks

 

[DeletedUser]

1- Spartans
2- Trojans
3- Greeks

Spartans and Trojans were both Greeks..

The winners of the World would be the group that wins overall.

What would be the criteria for 'winning overall'? Were it to just be 'the group that survives', the world would potentially never end. There would need to be some specific criteria for a world end-game.

 

[DeletedUser]

Suggested before. Got knocked back.

Nice thought, difficult to maintain and setup though.

That was one where everyone was seperated through ethnicity which was a bit weird... This one is better.

Spartans and Trojans were both Greeks..

That issue can be addressed...

What would be the criteria for 'winning overall'? Were it to just be 'the group that survives', the world would potentially never end. There would need to be some specific criteria for a world end-game.

The Group with the most players remaining once a group has been eliminated.

Once you get rimmed your out.

Once every group has 5000 players, the World is closed to new entry.

 

[DeletedUser]

A group may never be eliminated, however. 5000 players is a lot, and as players grow it becomes more and more difficult to completely rim them. If a requirement for victory is that one group is completely eliminated it would not be a very good world.

 

[DeletedUser]

What would you suggest going with the theme of 3 groups destroying each other?

 

[DeletedUser]

There could, potentially, be some kind of world scoreboard. This would record cities conquered, lost and total gains (conquers minus losses) for the three groups. A winning condition could then be included as a certain number of conquers or total cities gained. Perhaps 1000 gains, or 10000 conquers, or something else along those lines.

This would keep the contest between the groups, and would show which has supremacy.

Were this to be the case there could be an individual scoreboard for each side showing which players had conquered the most, lost the most, gained the most ABP, DBP, etc.

Conquering players on the same 'side' as you could be allowed, but it would not count towards the conquest total. This would prevent the conquest of inactives/ghosts from affecting the scores.

 

[DeletedUser]

That's pretty good! Hats off too you.

I love it

 

[Varun]

How about making fixed targets. In Age of Empires: Rise of Nations, we are given a fixed target. We can attack only that target. If we deviate then we receive heavy damage. Once the target is eliminated then we are assigned another target.

Similarly, Trojans can be in war with suppose Spartans. Once Trojans eliminate Spartans, then only they can move on to Greeks. During that period, Greeks have to stay mum. If they spy or attack anyone else, they can be destroyed. Once the first war is over, there can be a cooldown for the Trojans to rebuild. Then begins the war with the Greeks.

Abuse: Greeks will become extremely strong, making it a one-sided battle. (Maybe certain restrictions can be imposed on Greeks. I dunno)

Discussions are welcome.

 

[DeletedUser]

Hmm. I prefer a bit of a free for all.

Grepolis is more death, destruction and chaos, while Age of Empires is more order and death.

I think this World should be a big giant mess, with conquests and attacks shooting out everywhere!

 

[Varun]

Grepolis is more death, destruction and chaos, while Age of Empires is more order and death.

I think this World should be a big giant mess, with conquests and attacks shooting out everywhere!

I dunno about death, destruction and chaos. I rarely have seen so many conquests and attacks shooting out everywhere. Also, this will make it very hectic as a schedule. Continuous attacks and conquests. Players who can devote 1 hr everyday are welcome

Yet, your idea is great as always, Wave!

P.S. Your sig is done. Check your inbox.

 

[DeletedUser]

Giving specific attack targets would not be good for the game. One of the best things about this game is that there are no specific rules telling you what to do with your game. The only restriction for attacking is travel times, but for the most part you are free to do what you want, when you want. To set specific missions and attack targets would be a negative addition to the game.

 

[J.n.c 1993]

Haven't read any posts on this thread, only the first.

Wouldn't it be better to categorize the three groups as;

1. Greeks
2. Romans
3. Persians

No?

 

[DeletedUser]

Haven't read any posts on this thread, only the first.

Wouldn't it be better to categorize the three groups as;

1. Greeks
2. Romans
3. Persians

No?

Or perhaps name groups after the various Greek city states.

 

[DeletedUser]

WAVEBREAKER!! I dont know man, but you seem to be bursting at the seams with good ideas! Its like finding a spring in the oasis! I love it!

I can't give you any more rep because you have so many good ones. This would be very different and fun.

 

[DeletedUser]

Haven't read any posts on this thread, only the first.

Wouldn't it be better to categorize the three groups as;

1. Greeks
2. Romans
3. Persians

No?

This is a Greek game and it should be
Spartans
Athenians
Macedonians

all these are Greek, good and powerful groups in Greece

 

[DeletedUser]

15000 members x 150 alliances = Friendly Fire+Loads of spies in alliances+Too many noobs in one organisation...

Creative because no 2 players could join the same team in a row, but what if one team gets all the good players and the other team gets all the inactives etc. The Nation Limit is 2 large maybe try a few more nations?

Q1. Would there be external forums?
Q2. Will there be any requirements to enter?
Q3. How would you determine leadership on the whole of the nation and of the individual alliances?