Wish List New way to end the game

I don't understand because I think that its going to take years for alliances to go down unless they crazy merge and work together ;)

Way too hard to take down every last enemy city at the point where the #1 and #2 Alliances both have thousands of cities.

And what happens if the 2 top alliances are completely separated and cant fight eachother, and its filled with small alliances and Ghost cities in between them?
 

ShreftyThred

Strategos
I don't understand because I think that its going to take years for alliances to go down unless they crazy merge and work together ;)

Way too hard to take down every last enemy city at the point where the #1 and #2 Alliances both have thousands of cities.

And what happens if the 2 top alliances are completely separated and cant fight eachother, and its filled with small alliances and Ghost cities in between them?
thats the point! people always complain about how they hate the the game ends in just a little over a year! this would make the world last for a very long time. as for your second question... you move into one anothers area. by destroying a city and then conquering s city, at this point in the game the only thing that could make growing a small city very quickly is time. you would have a very large quantity of resources from your different cities. Also as i previously stated before it would avoid from having turtling simmers win the world because they could shove the most resources down the WW's throat.
 

Aannira

Guest
The idea has interisting aspects, like "hey guys, you've spent 2 years building, now let's see who destroys best" :p

But in practice, I don't think it would work as it is.
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...
Exactly. Nearing the "Destruction Era" alliances would just run away from the center where their cities are more exposed, and colonize far away. Nobody would dare to attack the top alliance because they would retaliate on your cities. Active players would destroy (suicide) each other, then you'd have all those sleepy semi-actives to care about. The center would get empty, then you'd have all those remains on the edges. Pushing this further, players would have no interest in joining a world early because they would land in the center. Finally: to reduce risks, alliances wouldn't want to be concentrated but scattered in all oceans. And before Destruction Era, this would make team play more rare. So, the end could be fun, but all the game before would get more boring.
A no from me, as it is.

I understand the concerns with WW era. Players look for being the best fighter, then it all turns about sending ressources 24/7 to some island. Personally, I don't think there could be a perfect ending as different players look for different things in the game, but I think it could greatly be improved with more fight and less building in the WW process. Some tracks have been suggested that way.
 

ShreftyThred

Strategos
The idea has interisting aspects, like "hey guys, you've spent 2 years building, now let's see who destroys best" :p

But in practice, I don't think it would work as it is.

Exactly. Nearing the "Destruction Era" alliances would just run away from the center where their cities are more exposed, and colonize far away. Nobody would dare to attack the top alliance because they would retaliate on your cities. Active players would destroy (suicide) each other, then you'd have all those sleepy semi-actives to care about. The center would get empty, then you'd have all those remains on the edges. Pushing this further, players would have no interest in joining a world early because they would land in the center. Finally: to reduce risks, alliances wouldn't want to be concentrated but scattered in all oceans. And before Destruction Era, this would make team play more rare. So, the end could be fun, but all the game before would get more boring.
A no from me, as it is.

I understand the concerns with WW era. Players look for being the best fighter, then it all turns about sending ressources 24/7 to some island. Personally, I don't think there could be a perfect ending as different players look for different things in the game, but I think it could greatly be improved with more fight and less building in the WW process. Some tracks have been suggested that way.
i see your concern and raise you with... what about a system that puts different alliances in almost a weight class kind of way. for example you could have the 'Elite' league where the top 25 alliances are in a league and so and so forth, i can see how this could also cause problems, and may be confusing to work out. but i honestly think that the ideas core idea is pretty solid, we just need to work out the kinks. the reason i originally chose the idea was because alot of players just want the old "never ending fighting with no end game" but some people prefer there to be an objective and an endgame, and i feel this kinda carries both aspects of that. but please continue pointing out flaws so we can edit this and make it more appealing to more people.
 

ch0pperMad

Guest
I like the thought of adding more of a fighting element to endgame (I truly hate how a wargame ends up as an economy and city management game in the end - that shouldnt be the point of grepo), but this just doesnt seem to cut it, it would be too chaotic and it would literally never end, because wiping out a major end-game alliance completely is near impossible, firstly it takes an insane amount of time to kill those thousands of cities and secondly you can constantly replenish your alliance with more players.

Dividing alliances into categories isnt too great of an idea either, for example in world Actium there were 3 major alliances in the end + a whole bunch of tiny sim alliances who never do anything, that second part of alliances would never get round to conquering each other, as they are more focused on keeping their cities nice and tidy and well built rather than waste the energy and resources on attaacking.
 

ShreftyThred

Strategos
I like the thought of adding more of a fighting element to endgame (I truly hate how a wargame ends up as an economy and city management game in the end - that shouldnt be the point of grepo), but this just doesnt seem to cut it, it would be too chaotic and it would literally never end, because wiping out a major end-game alliance completely is near impossible, firstly it takes an insane amount of time to kill those thousands of cities and secondly you can constantly replenish your alliance with more players.

Dividing alliances into categories isnt too great of an idea either, for example in world Actium there were 3 major alliances in the end + a whole bunch of tiny sim alliances who never do anything, that second part of alliances would never get round to conquering each other, as they are more focused on keeping their cities nice and tidy and well built rather than waste the energy and resources on attaacking.
a big point in this idea is that it would take forever, i hear people complain that worlds end to quickly. this would take a minimum of like 5 years..just the era of destruction. meaning if you know what your doing, you can play on one world for a very long time. it would end eventually, because to get city slots a city must be destroyed. chaotic is good. and to make sure that small nooby alliances dont turtle down, why dont we have an ABP requirement to partake in the era of destruction, let me know what you think.
 

chalna

Guest
worlds would literally never end, 10 guys who know what they are doing could hold their cities forever.
 

ShreftyThred

Strategos
worlds would literally never end, 10 guys who know what they are doing could hold their cities forever.
the world would end, it would just take a very long time, every city is possible to take, you just need to posses the tools to do so
 

dezXIV

<img src="http://i1210.photobucket.com/albums/cc42
I think this would make a great extra feature, but not exactly a great game ender...
 

czar666

Mr.Kappa
against this being the game ender. Yea we should have a fighting way to end the game, but not destroying each and every city. when an alliance has (say) 10000 cities and rest of world has 2000 (say 1500 in rank 2 alliance), the defenders will just try to play spoilt sport... turtle their stuff on extreme rim and even the larger alliance will get bored
 

ShreftyThred

Strategos
against this being the game ender. Yea we should have a fighting way to end the game, but not destroying each and every city. when an alliance has (say) 10000 cities and rest of world has 2000 (say 1500 in rank 2 alliance), the defenders will just try to play spoilt sport... turtle their stuff on extreme rim and even the larger alliance will get bored
honestly i cant think of another fighting way to actually end the game with an in game objective. have any ideas?
 

SeeRider4

Phrourach
The biggest disadvantage I see with this idea as a whole, is that as you conquer your enemies, you grow steadily apart ... and as you get further apart, conquests become increasingly difficult. However you could cater for this by setting a percentage of domination required - i.e. if your alliance ends up owning a certain percentage of the world, then you win.

Also what about just changing it so that once WW era has ended, any further conquests will destroy the city. There is no need to create a 'destructionator', but in the same way that after a certain period, the symbols that allow a city to be founded are removed from the map, the same way when a city is conquered, it becomes a ghost and ghosts can no longer be conquered.

In this way, play can continue as normal, but once a city is conquered, it is GONE.
 

DeletedUser46310

Guest
WW stage, as it is nowdays can only evolve, can only move forward. Inno wont do any changes to go back to old school..They made it very clear by simply playing deaf on every single proposition, plea, request,etc. community had. It is what it is.
But, aside from the idea in general which in mho is reallllly hard to implement, the best thing we could hope for is that Inno somehow combines the "old grepo type of play" with ongoing end-game mechanism. Question is how you can do it? Actually quite simple, you put a "condition" on the speed of WW's growth..Daily construction is directly dependent on the number of BP's Alliance in general had that day. It will force each alliance that builds wonders to fight for BP;s in order to equivalently invest resources in buildings.. The trade ratio can vary..say 1 BP for 1000 res or something like that..

Now I understand this is just a rough sketch and prolly has numerous loopholes in it. For example, Grepo as it is at certain point of the game when cities fairly develop, rewards defenders more than attackers, so why would a simmer alliance/coalition worry about BPs..They would just turtle up, and with this instant building/buying resources type of "stuff" already implemented they would literally just wait for BPs to fall from the sky....Or even worse, alliance could intentionally sacrifice their own troops on a daily basis and dump stacked transports on eachother to gain BPs...List of things that can go wrong is quite long I understand.

On the other hand each one of the bugs can have a solution.. In ex1 for instance this proposition would require the same number of both DBP and ABP in order that Alliance gaines acces to posibility of invest..So they would have to both attack and defend...Would be something like a slot or similar..

Just an idea that crossed my mind..I'm sure Inno will gladly read it, consider it and put it in a box with all other ideas comunity has proposed :)
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Sparky692006

Guest
Tbh, WW is a rubbish way to end a world, also destroying cities is pretty pointless....as you get a bunch of swimming turtles they so hard to beat if all on one island etc...

But surly, to end a game with say every alliance must not drop below 10% of alliance cap to win, every player in the alliance has at least 75 cities each, and control 2 complete oceans.

This way, if you a simmer you never grow as fast enough to gain slots, so will never win, meaning more fighting for slots to reach the 75 cities, and any inactive players will be consumed faster meaning less defending.

But you will need to remove the buying of slots to make things fairer.