Wish List New way to end the game

  • Thread starter DeletedUser30636
  • Start date

DeletedUser30636

Guest
My answer will be as it's always been. No lets just get rid of WW or at least down play their purpose. There should be no end game to a world and we should just put up our dukes and do this old school till we all die of boredom.

yea I would lose all interest in playing grepolis, there needs to be a goal for me other than satisfaction of winning a war.
 

DeletedUser41523

Guest
yea I would lose all interest in playing grepolis, there needs to be a goal for me other than satisfaction of winning a war.

I think most people have lost all interest in playing Grepolis anyways. Community is a shell of its former self. Personally when I played old school I always thought of a goal like being able to say that I was one of the 300 at the closing of a world. Or leading my way to the top. Or defeating a rival. But then again that also used to be a challenge. I guess almost any old alliance can break top 12 now a days. :/

WW is also a pretty boring goal to have when you think about it. I don't mind a world winning end game. But we should all agree that fighting for possibly 2 years depending on world speed then calling it all quits to build wonders is a little annoying. Surely there's a more climatic end game. Honestly i'd rather fight endless wars on worlds that don't die in a month. Kids these days...They'll never know what they missed on Gamma and Theta. :D
 
Last edited by a moderator:

DeletedUser30636

Guest
exactly, that's why I propose to destroy everything, the best alliance would win :D
 

DeletedUser27700

Guest
This is derailing guys.
Lets keep it focused on the idea ;)
 

DeletedUser30636

Guest
now now now icey, I disagree I believe that it is on topic... im gonna regret saying that.. :p
 

DeletedUser41523

Guest
exactly, that's why I propose to destroy everything, the best alliance would win :D

What if instead of city destruction the player who lost a city would also lose the slot for that town?

city destruction would be even worse than WW. After all as you destroy a near by city your target gets farther away. You don't really conclude a fight you just allow them to live.
 

DeletedUser

Guest
This would severely speed up the end. No comment on whether or not I like it..
 

DeletedUser39031

Guest
After seeing your answers to my questions, no. People would just build a 25 wall with thermal baths then demolish everything for defensive troops. This would make an intense Mexican Standoff that lasts until people get bored
 

DeletedUser30636

Guest
After seeing your answers to my questions, no. People would just build a 25 wall with thermal baths then demolish everything for defensive troops. This would make an intense Mexican Standoff that lasts until people get bored
people build 25 walls and thermal baths now? there will always be turtle I don't see how your reasoning applies
 

DeletedUser41523

Guest
I think never ending war is still better. But again this idea doesn't even make a ton of sense if you look at it. Again you could only destroy so many towns before you couldn't touch your enemies anymore. Where as in conquest you could keep fighting and eventually chase then across the server if need be.
 

DeletedUser30636

Guest
I think never ending war is still better. But again this idea doesn't even make a ton of sense if you look at it. Again you could only destroy so many towns before you couldn't touch your enemies anymore. Where as in conquest you could keep fighting and eventually chase then across the server if need be.

I understand what you mean and yea that could be a problem, but what if you could still conquer to move into territory, and destroying cities would be an option, you could just no longer colonize
 

DeletedUser

Guest
Why should you lose a city for taking out another city? I think it will be better if you could have your city.
 

DeletedUser30636

Guest
Why should you lose a city for taking out another city? I think it will be better if you could have your city.

???? No you get to keep your cities but if your city gets destroyed then you lose it.


And howa about this guys, during the the time of the WW you have an option to destroy a city, you can still conquer a city but the only way to get city slots is if you destroy a city. Also at that time any city under 2000 points will automatically be destroyed and no can join after this. You can also not colonize
 

DeletedUser10962

Guest
???? No you get to keep your cities but if your city gets destroyed then you lose it.


And howa about this guys, during the the time of the WW you have an option to destroy a city, you can still conquer a city but the only way to get city slots is if you destroy a city. Also at that time any city under 2000 points will automatically be destroyed and no can join after this. You can also not colonize

More or less exactly what I suggested earlier ... hence I would support it as a good idea
 

DeletedUser30636

Guest
Proposal: Clearly as we all know, the majority of us hate WW. And yes several alternatives have been suggested but they often seem confusing and complicated. Well this idea is simple, easy to get used to, and just better IMO. basically it would be the era of destruction.


Have you Checked the DNS and PSI lists in the Archives? Is this idea similar to one that has been previously suggested?
a little bit, and there are similar things but I believe mine stands out


Reason: the current system is just dumb and disappointing and we need some good change here.


Details: basically you would meet the same requirements that you do to get to the WW to get the destruction era. and nothing would change except instead of building WW you destroy your enemies cities. The way you destroy an enemy city is generally the same way you conquer a city, except instead of a colony ship, you have a different ship ( resource cost and pop. is not for my deciding) maybe call it the destructioniator :p and basically instead of sending a colony ship you would send the destructioniator and if it landed instead of gaining control of the city you would destroy it. you could still conquer, but the only way to gain city slots would be to destroy a city. you could also not colonize.


Visual Aids:none


Balance: I don't think it needs balancing


Abuse Prevention: none to my current knowledge


Summary: basically to fix the broken end game system to promote more fighting and actually let people who deserve it to win the world not simmers.

as always constructive criticism is welcomed

*revised*
 

DeletedUser

Guest
maybe an end game could be controlling an ocean 100%... or something like that, ocean control basically
 

DeletedUser

Guest
One of the problems with controlling 100% of an ocean or destroying cities are those players who decide they are going to colonize a bunch of cities in ocean 00. Especially if you can't create new cities to fight them, one turtle far away could hold for forever, and ever, and ever...
 

DeletedUser32373

Guest
Sorry but this idea doesnt make sense at all. A no from me, sorry man- if you thought it out more it could probably be a good idea.
 

DeletedUser30636

Guest
Sorry but this idea doesnt make sense at all. A no from me, sorry man- if you thought it out more it could probably be a good idea.

what dont you under stand? you can no longer colonize. you can still conquer cities. But the only way to get a city slot is to destroy a city. this meaning that the number of cities would start to slowly diminish as no new cities would be built. also no one can join the world once it reaches this era. make more sense now?


And KC, you cant colonize cities but you can still conquer. so you could still move into enemy territory
 
Top