New World Settings Poll Part 2

What settings should the new world have?

  • Conquest

    Votes: 96 63.2%
  • Revolt

    Votes: 51 33.6%
  • World Wonders

    Votes: 62 40.8%
  • Domination

    Votes: 72 47.4%
  • Alliance Cap 25

    Votes: 50 32.9%
  • Alliance Cap 30

    Votes: 12 7.9%
  • Alliance Cap 35

    Votes: 6 3.9%
  • Alliance Cap 40

    Votes: 83 54.6%
  • Morale Active

    Votes: 35 23.0%
  • Morale Inactive

    Votes: 109 71.7%

  • Total voters
    152
  • Poll closed .
Status
Not open for further replies.

Baudin Toolan

Grepolis Team
Since we ran a poll for the settings we can't fairly decide to ignore certain settings because they won in favor of others. That being said seeing that 25 cap did come in second we can certainly use the smaller cap on a future world as this does show there is continued interest in smaller caps.
 

bugeyes10

Phrourach
As there are fewer and fewer players, smaller and smaller ally caps will be needed regardless of what players want.
 

kingpg28

Phrourach
As there are fewer and fewer players, smaller and smaller ally caps will be needed regardless of what players want.

honestly true, its a lot of missed money cause people dont want to play 40
cap, that is too large for these dead servers.. but you guys can decide to not listen and keep killin the game… how is your goal not to get all the fast players on fast worlds in same server and slow players in same server. that breeds competition and competition = more money for inno which equates to more ideas that change the game cause i dont work for free and im sure you dont either
 

Pro-Grep

Phrourach
1. I agree with people who says that all options must be given. I have never played Olympus and I guess I’m not the only one, so Olympus world might get more players into world, more options more activity I guess.

2. About alliance cap, yeah it will be fun and all if caps were 25, but that’s only if players decide to play real Grepo. Because we all know how it goes, there joins at least 2-3 MRA with infinity of branches and infinity of players in them. That ruins all the fun and makes most of the people leave the world. And those teams who aren’t doing MRA stuff at certain point decide to join forces against MRAs and we get just 2 massive sides. On the other hand small cap fast world attract heavy golders, which isn’t against rules but it’s annoying when you come out of BP with 2-3 medium sized cities and enemy awaits you with filly built dozen of cities.

And imo higher capacity should at least decrease all these problems and if you want full solve of this, there should be added new voting section for diplomacy. If world didn’t have shared forums and pact functions that would kill MRAs straight away.
 
Personally, I don’t care much about the cap. But I think that people read way too much into the effect an alliance cap will have. It’s also ignoring the problem of dying servers and trying to artificially make them look bigger than they are.

Rather than Inno tackling the problem of getting more players into the game. Which would then actually make a 25 cap feel unique.
 

thunder123

Hipparchus
Personally, I don’t care much about the cap. But I think that people read way too much into the effect an alliance cap will have. It’s also ignoring the problem of dying servers and trying to artificially make them look bigger than they are.

Rather than Inno tackling the problem of getting more players into the game. Which would then actually make a 25 cap feel unique.
agree. nothing much to say
cap is meaningless.
players who want a solid skilled group will play with a solid small and skilled group even with cap 40.
mra will have 10 branches with cap 25, 6 branches with cap 40. nothing changes
 

EsQuuZmiii

Taxiarch
i dont mind to see Alliance cap with 20players... they have point - Grepo isnt as popular as it was years back... Tho that dsnt mean game is bad...

Just more alliances, more fun i guess?!

P.s. when world will be open?!
 

Hydna

Grepolis Team
I think the cap does make a difference. In Dom its easier to achieve the Dom % with higher numbers and in WW its easier to send resources if there are more of you. In all endgames it allows more players to earn a reward when there is one winner. When you add to that the situation where 2nd/3rd gain benefits then smaller caps allow MRAs a chance to scoop more winning positions - e.g. 1st and 3rd. To me it makes sense to have a variety but when we have a poll its up to you guys.
 
This would be great I suppose if it had much of an impact on the winner of the game. Thing is that the groups involved in these worlds have been playing together for up to 5+ years in some cases. So it’ll more slow down Dom than change the outcome much I think.

I’m all for lower caps if they improve the dynamics. The problem is you need more players and alliances to do that.
 

bugeyes10

Phrourach
When you add to that the situation where 2nd/3rd gain benefits then smaller caps allow MRAs a chance to scoop more winning positions - e.g. 1st and 3rd. To me it makes sense to have a variety but when we have a poll its up to you guys.
I guess this highlights the biggest issue in the game, people are content to sim for prizes. While I think the new artifact system is fantastic, it will also play into this issue in that players can be content with the rewards they get for 3rd place instead of fighting for 1st. If more people were motivated to try and WIN the world instead of just chilling for a reward smaller ally caps would produce more competitive worlds.
 

kingpg28

Phrourach
I think the cap does make a difference. In Dom its easier to achieve the Dom % with higher numbers and in WW its easier to send resources if there are more of you. In all endgames it allows more players to earn a reward when there is one winner. When you add to that the situation where 2nd/3rd gain benefits then smaller caps allow MRAs a chance to scoop more winning positions - e.g. 1st and 3rd. To me it makes sense to have a variety but when we have a poll its up to you guys.

you droppin this world with your ally? ill play wit yall and carry you to victory
 

1saaa

Strategos
Personally, I don’t care much about the cap. But I think that people read way too much into the effect an alliance cap will have. It’s also ignoring the problem of dying servers and trying to artificially make them look bigger than they are.

Rather than Inno tackling the problem of getting more players into the game. Which would then actually make a 25 cap feel unique.
All a 25 cap does is make the endgame in dom last longer.
 

Zen Shadow

Lochagos
Looking forward to the new CQ world. 141 is already over…. What would be great would be if all the old players agreed like gentlemen and ladies to only have one alliance without sisters, not pact more than one or two other groups, and actually be willing to fight against, yes against, some of their friends from previous servers. Instead of dropping in 100 players who all want to hug, drop in groups of no more than 10-20 like fire teams, run your own alliances, and fight against your friends just for the fun of it! That would make the outcome a lot more interesting for everyone involved. ;)
 
Last edited:

bugeyes10

Phrourach
Looking forward to the new CQ world. 141 is already over…. What would be great would be if all the old players agreed like gentlemen and ladies to only have one alliance without sisters, not pact more than one or two other groups, and actually be willing to fight against, yes against, some of their friends from previous servers. Instead of dropping in 100 players who all want to hug, drop in groups of no more than 10-20 like fire teams, run your own alliances, and fight against your friends just for the fun of it! That would make the outcome a lot more interesting for everyone involved. ;)
Alternatively just get a good group of players together and make one alliance that sweeps the simmers with a warscore of 1000-80
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top