Passed No WW rewards for second completion

Status
Not open for further replies.

Archon of Corinth

Guest
as it currently stands, multiple alliances can win crowns on the same server by pumping resources to a single alliance's WW builds and once four wonders are completed swap members over to the alliance that is building them so that all members of these coalitions involved can gain crowns, this should be stopped as it is an unfair advantage to other alliances that try to compete on a level playing field, this has been done in a couple of different servers now and id like to see membership to alliances stopped once the age of WW's has begun, thus ensuring every alliance has equal chance of winning and is done so in the spirit of fair play

two or three alliances joining together to send resources for WW builds and then swapping players around to ensure victory is very unfair and should not be allowed under any circumstances
Well said! I support this op. The current arrangements allow for a style play that I abhor and which will encourage exploits and cheating. At the end of the day the WW players are not necessarily those who deserved the award but those who spend more coins and are able manipulate alliances and even the game itself to achieve their goals.

This will lead to a cadre of players who spend coins; are close to mods and admin members and are prepared to exploit any game imbalance to their advantage. Victory in the game should only be awarded to the alliance that achieved it and not shared with a bunch of amoral hangers on.
 

Grand Patriarch

Guest
get's my vote. In Myonia, Wargasm are still building wonders months after the world has been won and everyone else has left.
 
Interesting idea. I see your point but I don't fully support it as for being able to stay in the world for that long people deserve some sort of reward. I don't think the people should get crowns though but those are stupid anyway.
 

Sirloin

Strategos
I think it is unfortunate that the crowns, like other changes of the same era (anything heroworld related) were debased, and I think the gold/silver/bronze is a nice idea.

I think that taking away what has been given already would be completely out of line, as would closing worlds immediately after WWs. This was debated long ago, and the agreement for worlds to remain open until less than 300 active players remain was hard won and a great relief to many, especially those who had never wanted WW or an endgame in the first place.

Strange as it may sound, the anger of "winners" at anyone else being allowed to continue enjoying their game, or get rewards from it, after said "winners" lose interest and wander away is a bit sour grapes. Staying power is part of the game and realistic. If you cba to defend your property it won't stay yours for long. :pro:
 

georgiopolus

Phrourach
May I suggest an Ammendment to the end-game proposal.
The Game is Advertised as build your own empire and rule the world, therefore I would propose that the end-game rules be ammended to:
a./ An Alliance must control the greatst number of cities in the world.
b./ An Alliance must have the greatest number of ABPs.
c./ An Alliance must build Seven WWs and successfully hold them for Two months ( depending on the world speed settings )
d./ After an Alliance has successfuly fullfilled the previous Three rules The Master of the World Award is given and the world is closed.
Any changes in a., b. or c. would stop the countdown and extend the life of the world untill all conditions are met.
This would involve very little work for Inno but give an end-game with incentive to continue.
 

Forwandert

Phrourach
All they have to do is set up the master award exact same as the victor award, you can only win victor once on a server not sure why they havent done this already considering the amount of times this comes up.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.