Rejected New World: World at War

  • Thread starter The Obliterator
  • Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.

DeletedUser

Guest
Proposal:
Create a non conquer world but with a new and interesting twist. As alliances form and egos begin to rise alliances can choose to go to war with one another in which case they would be able to activate a temporary conquer system which would be limited to those alliance(S) involved in the war.

Have you check the DNS and PSI lists in the Archives?
No


Reason:
Is this necessary NO not all!

Is this an enhancing addition to the game? Yes I believe it would be a pretty cool new world.

The way we play now on either worlds would still be the way we play on this world with the exception of being able to make some alliances susceptible to the conquer system should they enter into war with one another and a a couple new twists.


Details:
The world is founded exactly how the current non conquer world is setup with some new added twists.
As time goes by and Alliances are formed the world starts to get bold and their desire for aggressive expansion increases. what alliances can do now is enable the feature of entering into war with one another. When this feature becomes enabled only the cities of the alliances which have declared war with each other will be able to be conquered and conquered only by the alliance(S) they are at war with. Alliances that are not at war but are your Pact members can get involved in the war to help turn the tide of the battle. If they choose to do so they too are ushered into the conquer system and now their cities can be conquered ONLY by the opposing alliance(S).
Wars would begin by a founder(s) declaring war on the Main Forum (not ingame forum). The opposing alliance(s) would have to reply to the war declaration and either accept or decline the challenge. IF they accept the challenge the alliances involved would need to decide what would be the end of the war which could be decided by cities lost or a simple admit of defeat. If they choose "cities lost" there could be an automatic set of amounts of city losses that would determine the victor(S) of the war, maybe 10, 15, 20, 50, all cities lost. Which ever side loses the the predetermined amount of cities are declared the winners and perhaps a special gift is given to that alliance and an award to be place on the alliance page indicating their success. In the alliance tab where it would normally tell you who has lost or conquered a city, you could create a city count down which would keep an up to date tally of who is winning the war.
If they choose to make the win be by whoever admits defeat first then what they can do is create a button in the alliance overview where only the founder(S) can click on it which you could name [surrender]. If a side surrenders then all cities of the surrendering alliances lose 10% of their daily resources which are allocated to the winning side this allocation would be considered a PEACE offering and would in active for 7 days.

If a war declaration has been created and accepted and the end of war decided, the forum moderator would pass the declaration to whoever they need to to activate those alliances into conquer mode.

Any number of alliances can get involved in the war. which make the possibilities of battles endless:
1 vs 1
2 vs 2
3 vs 1
3 vs 2
1 vs 1 vs 2
ect...

Visual Aids:
None sorry


Balance:
Need some help here........


Abuse Prevention:
Players might try bailing on their alliance if they enter into war to avoid losing towns so what I would suggest is to make it impossible for members to join OR leave an alliance when it is involved in a war.

Guys I really like this idea and think it would be a hit. this is pretty much a rough draft so give me some help as to how we can fine tune this idea and I will edit this post to show the corrections and what not OR you can just message me with your suggestions and some changes and I will look it over and add or remove things.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

DeletedUser

Guest
I don't like this idea. First of all, making it impossible to join or leave the alliance during a war is a big thing right there. Second, I don't see how its more interesting than the worlds we have now, less aggression and such. Third simmers! If you give the option to choose if they don't want to fight makes it even worse!
 

DeletedUser

Guest
Great Idea!!! IN FAVOR!
 
Last edited by a moderator:

DeletedUser

Guest
I don't like this idea. First of all, making it impossible to join or leave the alliance during a war is a big thing right there. Second, I don't see how its more interesting than the worlds we have now, less aggression and such. Third simmers! If you give the option to choose if they don't want to fight makes it even worse!

I think players being kept in an alliance until the war is over is very important and part of the abuse prevention.

How can you not see that having the option to from one moment non conquer to another moment conquer? how is that like the worlds we currently have now lol. Some players think conquer worlds are too aggressive while others think that non conquer worlds are not aggressive enough. My Proposal is to meet them both in the middle while allowing some to maintain their simmer lifestyles for a season and experience some highly aggressive moments as well.

When talking about simmers, if they do not want to fight they will end up losing their city to someone who wants to fight! once the war is over and things are at peace for the temporary allot meant of time players have a cool down period where wars are not possible so they can enjoy focusing on colonizing (strategic planning) and just growing their towns.

When you comment on my idea tell my something useful that I can actually improve my idea with.
 

DeletedUser

Guest
I think alliances would get burnt out without the fire of new players... Still it's okay. I'm not with or against this.
 

DeletedUser25074

Guest
What about unallianced players?

WW phase too any alliance that isnt in a war can just build there WW's unhindered. If u cant hit em u cant stop em so basically it would come down to who has more cities with most members. This would suck big time
 

DeletedUser

Guest
I think players being kept in an alliance until the war is over is very important and part of the abuse prevention.

How can you not see that having the option to from one moment non conquer to another moment conquer? how is that like the worlds we currently have now lol. Some players think conquer worlds are too aggressive while others think that non conquer worlds are not aggressive enough. My Proposal is to meet them both in the middle while allowing some to maintain their simmer lifestyles for a season and experience some highly aggressive moments as well.

When talking about simmers, if they do not want to fight they will end up losing their city to someone who wants to fight! once the war is over and things are at peace for the temporary allot meant of time players have a cool down period where wars are not possible so they can enjoy focusing on colonizing (strategic planning) and just growing their towns.

When you comment on my idea tell my something useful that I can actually improve my idea with.

Wow wow wow your idea post says they can choose to decline to fight. Oh and yes you never mentioned anything about unallianced players.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

DeletedUser

Guest
What about unallianced players?

WW phase too any alliance that isnt in a war can just build there WW's unhindered. If u cant hit em u cant stop em so basically it would come down to who has more cities with most members. This would suck big time

I do not suggest having WW's if this world is created.

Players that are not in an alliance would be safe from the conquer system sure but they will also not be able to conquer either! and they would most assuredly become farms for players that are in alliances.

This idea should be crafted and implemented in a way that it encourages players to choose an alliance and it would have to be given much thought as well because once your Founder declares war then you are in it till its over.

Again this idea of mine is to give both types of players what they like in a single world. My idea was drafted up while I was half asleep and yet it it needs obvious work to it and that is why I am reaching out to the Grepolis community for help.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

DeletedUser

Guest
maybe instead of making it so that alliances can choose NOT to go to war we could just have it so that one alliance can choose to go to war with whoever they want which would immediately usher both alliances in to the conquer system. Alliances that assist in either way to either side would also be ushered into the conquer system.

The Title of the world (World at War) should be created in a way and with the intent that multiple alliances will be in confrontation with each other dragging along to the battle alliance whom they hold Pacts with, thus the title WORLD AT WAR.

These wars should be temporary based on objectives which would concluded the confrontation and usher in a cool down period where alliances can focus on diplomacy where ever they like, building their towns, fortify their cities, and form stronger bonds because this cool down period surely will not last forever and it would only be a matter of time before the ego and aggressive ambitions of another alliance will bring the world in another state of War.
 

DeletedUser

Guest
Well....As you all know new world ideas/suggestions are DNS; therefore, I will be closing this thread. :/

Sorry, guys.

~ Lane
 

DeletedUser

Guest
until i get some sort of feedback from the devs on ideas they would like to see, and other stuff, new world ideas will remain on the DNS list

however since this idea is not that bad, i will not be moving it to Archive, and instead move it to Re-vote and Discussions :)
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top