Wish List Ideal End Game Solution and Why

DeletedUser41523

Guest
I've been kicking around how to improve the end game for awhile. Even going so far as to make an idea that totally revamps WWs and buffs their bonuses. But I decided not to post that idea because that idea still involves doing the main thing everyone complains about...Building wonders in the first place. So without further ado...


Proposal: Scrap the end game entirely. Don't worry about replacing it and instead let the game end when the world falls under 300 players. Leave the "winner" entirely subjective and instead make the fall of fame show the top ten fighters, players, and alliances of that world.

Reason: The original purpose of this end game was to give world winning teams entry into the hero worlds. Don't know what the hero worlds are? That's because after some initial interest, they fizzled out as the main game was more interesting to most players. Leaving the wonders as rather pointless monuments to an unsuccessful idea.

Its been four years since an end game revamp was promised. Nothing of substance has come since then. The only fix attempted was easy to abuse and get around as we just proved on Olous. All the ideas I've read in this section aren't really great (no offense to the people who put effort in). This leaves us with one hard truth. Inno has no good ideas for this problem and neither does the player base. So why be stuck with it? Inno probably doesn't want to get harassed with it anymore. And players are sick of dealing with it. Its a burden off the Inno idea department and the fun part of the game just gets extended.

I think that its time to return to the original premise of the game. Which was building an empire. Be it a personal one or an alliance. This was always the focal point of the game and wonders always were a tedious thing that everyone groaned at.

I can only speak personally here. But I didn't stick around for going on 8 years because world wonders were so awesome. I stuck around because creating alliances and helping people learn the game was fun for me.

Details:

1) Inno can either take them out from 2.0 or use a 1.26 map and update that map to the currently version only without the wonders. Whichever is less work.

2) The same closing condition applies. Once a world goes under 300 players, its in a 1 month count down. Once the countdown begins, no new players can join.

3) Similar to the heroic tactician award, crowns and victor/master awards can be kept as easter eggs.

Abuse: I'm not sure if this is really abuse as its more just nice to have than a big difference maker but just to add in a possible problem. The 50 favor cap from people who already won is an issue I can see. I'll leave that up to Inno or the players or both. Keep it as an easter egg or scrap it?

TL;DR Version:
Nobody has been able to come up with a good end game. So why even have an end game? Let the game end when the closing conditions are met and leave the winner open to interpretation. Revert back to the original game premise essentially.
 

DeletedUser46395

Guest
If I'm absolutely honest, I think I like the idea of no endgame rather less than WWs; I like the fact that there is currently a winner of a world, and that you know roughly when that will be. I even like the strategy element involved in the current endgame, even if I'm less than enthusiastic about actually building WWs. And although it's something gnarly old warriors love to hate, I suspect it's actually more popular than we realise with many who never venture in here.
And there are world's without an endgame already, but they're not that popular, are they?
But I think there is some merit in some of the recent suggestions for an alternative endgame - Labourd of Hercules and Persian Invasion, for example - and in this idea, too. Just not for all worlds. My ideal scenario would be to have alternative endgames as another world parameter; that way everyone wins. So yes, some world's with no endgame, some with a fighting finish, and some with a building one - should freshen things up and perhaps male people try more worlds.
Maybe I should format that. ;)
 

DeletedUser21560

Guest
Good way to fix the endgame would be for the WWs / game to end once all 7 was built. No rotation. The purpose of winning a world gets lost when you can just rotate in new players and get them the crown

This way it would be 1 on 1 for WWs, and not alliances with 4 sisters (like on Pagasae)

Could make it even more interesting and do it so once WW starts, all pacts gets auto deleted. And the possibility to trade outside of alliance gets closed. This way it will ensure the WWs being won by the best alliance and not the alliance with most members

----------------

Another suggestion could be to turn the WWs into a fight for WWs rather than a ressource sending job. Like divide the WWs between 7 alliances and then the fight for having 4 or 7 WWs starts. Each of the top 7 alliances gets 1 WW and then you have to bust each others WWs. Once you lose your WW, you are out of the race. The last alliance standing with 1 WW, wins the race
 

Silver Witch

Strategos
Good way to fix the endgame would be for the WWs / game to end once all 7 was built. No rotation. The purpose of winning a world gets lost when you can just rotate in new players and get them the crown

This way it would be 1 on 1 for WWs, and not alliances with 4 sisters (like on Pagasae)

Could make it even more interesting and do it so once WW starts, all pacts gets auto deleted. And the possibility to trade outside of alliance gets closed. This way it will ensure the WWs being won by the best alliance and not the alliance with most members

----------------

Another suggestion could be to turn the WWs into a fight for WWs rather than a ressource sending job. Like divide the WWs between 7 alliances and then the fight for having 4 or 7 WWs starts. Each of the top 7 alliances gets 1 WW and then you have to bust each others WWs. Once you lose your WW, you are out of the race. The last alliance standing with 1 WW, wins the race

I think any game needs a definitive ending and a declared winner. Yes there are some that just want to fight but i believe these are the minority.

I agree with Thizzle that some way of preventing a purely numbers win would be a good idea and that a limit to rotations is the easiest way to achieve this. However i would also make the following observations:

Any change to the end game must allow for both bigger and smaller players with differing amounts of time, skill and money to play fully. Size of player would become such an overwhelming requirement if the rules only allowed 1 set of crowns that the majority of those playing would find it difficult to be part of a winning group.

I do think that some limitation for awarding crowns would help. In Pagasae from your outside position you do not fully understand the dynamics of what has happened. The greatest benefit is actually the size and preparation of the main alliance. I am not denying numbers do make a difference.

Dividing WW. I dont think this would work. At the moment there are 3 parts to the game. Firstly a fight for territory which enables players to gain bp and therefore size/strength. Secondly a leadership angle coordinating the fight and securing/ filling an area. Thirdly the coordination of the correct city build and the motivation to send resources. With all 3 of these many different types of player are needed and its a game for all.

To just give the ww away would mean only 7 alliances could be part of the endgame, those alliances would naturally plan for as secure a position as possible and probably favour the rim. Ive played a world where a ww split occurred. The world ran for over 2 years before one group built 7. The effort required to move across several oceans to break, and your suggestion would need this to happen up to 6 times, is probably unrealistic. By the end of that world most had either left or were simming building defence for a few fighters.
 

DeletedUser21560

Guest
I think any game needs a definitive ending and a declared winner. Yes there are some that just want to fight but i believe these are the minority.

I agree with Thizzle that some way of preventing a purely numbers win would be a good idea and that a limit to rotations is the easiest way to achieve this. However i would also make the following observations:

Any change to the end game must allow for both bigger and smaller players with differing amounts of time, skill and money to play fully. Size of player would become such an overwhelming requirement if the rules only allowed 1 set of crowns that the majority of those playing would find it difficult to be part of a winning group.

I do think that some limitation for awarding crowns would help. In Pagasae from your outside position you do not fully understand the dynamics of what has happened. The greatest benefit is actually the size and preparation of the main alliance. I am not denying numbers do make a difference.

Dividing WW. I dont think this would work. At the moment there are 3 parts to the game. Firstly a fight for territory which enables players to gain bp and therefore size/strength. Secondly a leadership angle coordinating the fight and securing/ filling an area. Thirdly the coordination of the correct city build and the motivation to send resources. With all 3 of these many different types of player are needed and its a game for all.

To just give the ww away would mean only 7 alliances could be part of the endgame, those alliances would naturally plan for as secure a position as possible and probably favour the rim. Ive played a world where a ww split occurred. The world ran for over 2 years before one group built 7. The effort required to move across several oceans to break, and your suggestion would need this to happen up to 6 times, is probably unrealistic. By the end of that world most had either left or were simming building defence for a few fighters.

To prevent alliances from building these wonders in the rim, Inno could spread out the islands between the 4 core oceans. The alliance to control most cities on the WW island gets the WW - This way there would also be a fight before WW starts, to control the Island for WW.

If the same alliance controls multiple islands, the closest alliance get the WW. Im not going to be doing alot of thinking on how to fix the situation and make it fair, unless INNO thinks about changing the Endgame, not going to waste my time. But clearly there is a need for a better end game.

About it not being fair for smaller players that WW ends with only 1 alliance winning. I dont see why that is not fair. To win something means you got there first - why would anyone be the winners by being the second or third alliance to get WWs?
Problem with the crown now is everyone gets them,1st 2nd 3rd etc. Everyone can "win"

It needs to be limited to 1 alliance, and the world needs to end after WW is built
 

Silver Witch

Strategos
To prevent alliances from building these wonders in the rim, Inno could spread out the islands between the 4 core oceans. The alliance to control most cities on the WW island gets the WW - This way there would also be a fight before WW starts, to control the Island for WW.

If the same alliance controls multiple islands, the closest alliance get the WW. Im not going to be doing alot of thinking on how to fix the situation and make it fair, unless INNO thinks about changing the Endgame, not going to waste my time. But clearly there is a need for a better end game.

About it not being fair for smaller players that WW ends with only 1 alliance winning. I dont see why that is not fair. To win something means you got there first - why would anyone be the winners by being the second or third alliance to get WWs?
Problem with the crown now is everyone gets them,1st 2nd 3rd etc. Everyone can "win"

It needs to be limited to 1 alliance, and the world needs to end after WW is built
Maybe we need to have an experimental world with a different ending first.

The reason i made that comment about smaller players is that there are just so many guys who love the game, are loyal to a fault but actually only want to log in twice a day. To inno they mean extra customers, to the fighters they mean extra support/ attack - back up generally, and for themselves as personalities they add to a team. However strength is based on how active you are.

Maybe if we tried a one win only approach in a higher cap world that would be a start.
 

DeletedUser21560

Guest
Maybe we need to have an experimental world with a different ending first.

The reason i made that comment about smaller players is that there are just so many guys who love the game, are loyal to a fault but actually only want to log in twice a day. To inno they mean extra customers, to the fighters they mean extra support/ attack - back up generally, and for themselves as personalities they add to a team. However strength is based on how active you are.

Maybe if we tried a one win only approach in a higher cap world that would be a start.

My team also has some of these and they add to the team in many ways, but i wouldnt kick them out to get someone bigger in to help with WW. I would try to win with them on my team. So if they are left out of the team they are in, they have probably from the start been in the wrong team

Also those players are most likely not the ones spending money for premiums etc.

These players are also left out of sending ress, because someone bigger would be able to send more ress, so its really the same with or without a change for these players
 

DeletedUser21774

Guest
I like Thizzle's suggestion of ending a world once the Wonders have been awarded. Some people are goal oriented and enjoy completing a task and moving on and starting fresh. Spit-spot, done!
 

dianices

Phrourach
there are some games where players can create their own little mini episodes of game play, but those are usually 3d genres. i think in the case of a game like this you'd be able to create campaigns, with specified goals, means to achieve them, and bonus rewards for how quickly you finish them.
 

DeletedUser22517

Guest
Good way to fix the endgame would be for the WWs / game to end once all 7 was built. No rotation. The purpose of winning a world gets lost when you can just rotate in new players and get them the crown

This way it would be 1 on 1 for WWs, and not alliances with 4 sisters (like on Pagasae)

Could make it even more interesting and do it so once WW starts, all pacts gets auto deleted. And the possibility to trade outside of alliance gets closed. This way it will ensure the WWs being won by the best alliance and not the alliance with most members

----------------

Another suggestion could be to turn the WWs into a fight for WWs rather than a ressource sending job. Like divide the WWs between 7 alliances and then the fight for having 4 or 7 WWs starts. Each of the top 7 alliances gets 1 WW and then you have to bust each others WWs. Once you lose your WW, you are out of the race. The last alliance standing with 1 WW, wins the race

I been saying this for more than 5 years but no one is listening or give a ... about this. There is something everyone needs to understand: INNO does not have good enough servers to support any other end game than this resources sim play. Does not matter how good your PC is, if attacks reach 2, 3k entire world starts to slow down and give you error message. When you ask support they will say your PC is not powerful enough. I can play any game on ultra settings but can`t play browser game, hmm that is strange.
Simple as that PERIOD!
 

Rachel.L

Phrourach
I've made this suggestion before
no building of ww, they appear on an island once your alliance controls it
4 of the 7 are common, easy to find, 2 are uncommon, 1 is rare (a race/ fight to find and keep these)
any alliance can win by finding all 7, no matter the size
you just need enough bps for 140 anchors
i'm sure it's more complicated than this but it means everyone has a chance and fighting rather than building
 

DeletedUser31385

Guest
I've made this suggestion before
no building of ww, they appear on an island once your alliance controls it
4 of the 7 are common, easy to find, 2 are uncommon, 1 is rare (a race/ fight to find and keep these)
any alliance can win by finding all 7, no matter the size
you just need enough bps for 140 anchors
i'm sure it's more complicated than this but it means everyone has a chance and fighting rather than building
I have some ideas for the endgame stage that I will share with everyone later today.
 
Top