Ranga1
Strategos
That sentence is never true
Olympus World Feedback Thread
- Thread starter Baudin Toolan
- Start date
curadh
Phrourach
During your trolling ranga you should have seen I was the first to post thanks when it was announced
I don't bother looking at threads for Olympus changes now as they are completely irrelevant to revolt servers
Shuri2060
Strategos
Not sure I completely get your point. Perhaps you need to explain why you think Portals and Olympus moving every few days aren't enough of a balance against this?
Darth Akula
Lochagos
If you've played an Olympus world you'd understand the point here. But I was pretty sure my explanation was quite clear too...
In short:
Olympus moves every 21 days. And units are reset back home when it moves. You need to hold it for 21 days. If Olympus pops in #1 teams ocean first, in theory, they just won the game without a problem because of the short TTs vs everyone else's long TTs. Assuming we're still going by Cores - of which the games mechanics are built on cores so not doing a "Core" in Olympus is rather.... silly.
In what I've stated, if players start on outer rim, and have to work their way in with Olympus spawning in the middle of the map, this means that everyone has a fair chance at it. Same theory with LTs too. Perhaps if I did a map/picture it'd make more sense?
Shuri2060
Strategos
I think that depends on your world settings. In an example I see, Olympus needs to be held for 42 days and teleports every 17. I agree that it should teleport more frequently to lessen the spawn variance. I see it as more of a problem on how the numbers were chosen as opposed to a fundamental problem with Olympus.
Darth Akula
Lochagos
Maybe I need to relook at the time variance then.. BUT, I still think my theory/idea solves a number of problems. Course, if Portals were in the outer rim part where player spawn and move inwards towards Olympus, this would also allow the smaller and late teams to be able to do something at least. Idk, but I do believe a "fight to the center" would be a hell of an awesome world and I believe the Temple EG would be a great starting point for that and could also some some nuance problems temple EGs have
The portals are there to mitigate the teleportation of olympus. To make that work you need a base near a portal. If you have that then it doesnt matter where Olympus spawns - granted if it pops up next to you thats an advantage for that rotation but all worlds need several rotations (minimum 3).
I think its a balance between fighting and coring. Bigger cities speed up growth but smaller cities/colonising in the right location helps later. If Olympus was in the centre then stronger alliances have an advantage - with a random olympus I think smaller groups - especially smaller pacted groups have a good chance if they plan it right.
Ranga1
Strategos
Scrolling Deb. But you can use what term you like, don't want to upset you and solicit another complaint from you....During your trolling ranga you should have seen I was the first to post thanks when it was announced
I don't bother looking at threads for Olympus changes now as they are completely irrelevant to revolt servers
Darth Akula
Lochagos
While yes in theory, in play it's not 100% true. There's still the TT to the portal and portal TT in a speed 2 takes 1 hour to get from portal to Olympus. THAT is where the problem is. How much slower of a TT is it in S1? How much faster in S3+?
That said, while I understand your point of smaller alliances get a chance, you're also talking of alliances that either come in late to the game, or "leftovers", or people who only play just to play with a small number of people and have no desire to win. The point of the world, and any game, is to win it. The game's mechanics rewards people for actually playing it. The token buffs increase and the coins you get from quests increase as your city count/point count increases. After a number of time of your account being active, you are rewarded with free buffs - such as those who hit 4 years recently got a 4x BP token for free (or multiple) on "random" and it's because of the anniversary. What you're saying is to reward the people who did NOT put in the time, work, effort, and sacrifice with the opportunity to win. So, with that being the case, what's to stop me, or anyone, from making a strong big golding team, and waiting until a certain amount of time passes, drop into a world, and quickly take over and merge in dead alliances and other stuff, inherit temples and/or take easy ones, and then take the world win because we're FAR more "fresh" and not "beaten up" by months of fighting, drama, and other crap this game brings (because people)??? At that point, that's the best strategy to win a temple world, every time. And since Olympus pops in various COs after specific time, if it pops in my premade's ocean, guess what? I definintely just won without putting in much work at all. That absurd. Small alliances should not be rewarded for being small IN THE SENSE OF them not playing, joining late, or being leftovers. There's a reason why they didn't make the cut. There's a reason why this is a WAR game. At the end of the day, Olympus is a "war" to conquer it and with how it's currently set up, there's not much fighting for it vs "oh golly I hope the timing is good!"
What I've suggested, will also prevent people from doing the strategy I stated above because if I did so, an established bigger team STILL has to move through my "premade" and thus, eliminate me if they want to win, OR absorb me. In which case, I still have to put in the work either way, and far more than just simply joining late, and capitalizing on a dead world. And we all know there are PLENTY of people out there who will gold that much in order to make this theory a reality.
Should I be rewarded because I choose to play part time or barely while the player whose willing to actually fight and deal with alarms and sleepless nights, and drama etc not be? That doesn't make sense. Morale was introduced to HELP PREVENT the small player from getting crushed by the bigger player immediately. Not to reward them for being new or small. And eventually, morale doesn't even matter when you're big enough that you don't have to be efficient in your attacks anymore and can just "throw mud at the wall and see what sticks".
If I haven't made this point clear enough, you're saying that people without guns whom are standing up to people with guns in a war, should be rewarded for not having a weapon.... That's not how reality or any war game that I know of (or Grepolis even) works. The small player should never be rewarded. That's the WHOLE reason why we took away LMDs. But now you're saying to reward them again??? Then bring back LMDs while you're at it I guess??
Personally, I feel like a lot of the counters have never played a temple world honestly.. Idk about you Hydna, but people seriously need to play it in order to understand my points in action. It really does solve a LOT of things that can be exploited in the current EG with how it's built. And it won't be long until others catch on and we have another LMD scenario happening with this EG as it is. It needs reworking.
OutOfCharacters
Phrourach
Have to say, it's been interesting watching things develop in the Olympus end game. I agree with some of the previous comments on infinite ability to found anywhere and small temples being marked from day 1. I have some stronger opinions as the gameplay unfolds:
1) Temples being static, and also not being able to see incomings or choose to defend one so others can't take it... limits strategy and is hitting dummies without requiring broader strategic play. It would require more OP-like strategy to take temples with fakes, etc., or harder work, if the entire server could always see incomings (not the actual troops, just the attacks) to each temple.
2) The bp load from the temples favor those alliances who can respawn troops the fastest instead of requiring at least some skill regarding timing. For example, if another alliance is able to try to snipe OLU, then the attacking alliance needs to work a little harder-- which would promote wars, intel gathering, and strategy.
3) Allowing spells on incoming attacks on sieges on Olympus supports the abuse of Heracles, whereby an alliance doesn't need to properly diplo or plan for attacks, but can, in essence, spend the server building DLU and Heracles favor farms to gold out loads of defense solely for the purpose of turning all incoming nukes into nothing. This is a huge glitch and should be corrected immediately. Otherwise it tips the scale even further to the overpoweredness of gold that all players seem to agree exist, yet nothing is done to correct. It also yet again eliminates strategy. Much like LMD, it's an "abuse" that gives one player too much power in the game play, with support of their second team propping them up to eliminate hundreds of attacks. This feature alone will make the end game not interesting for most players. Who wants to either build swords and crash them continuously, or build LS/flyers, only to have one lone player have "fun" and annihilate them due to an overpowered game mechanic? Since LMD was removed mid-server, this should follow the same precedent and be removed immediately as well-- but NOW, before people spend too much time setting it up. This is probably the worst feature of this end game once they made it available. If it can't be eliminated because it would be "too hard to hold Olympus", it should at least be severely nerfed, through the number of spells that can be cast over a period of time, etc. Or perhaps, since Heracles is only used to buff up end games, change it so he only generates bp when HE attacks. This would at least require time and limit the abuse. (This would be interesting on WW worlds as well, they were more fun before he showed up.)
4) Only members IN the alliance holding a temple should be allowed to defend the temple. Otherwise, it enables a powerhouse alliance to plant its supporters in tiny sub-alliances, and potentially take many more than 12 temples, disallowing other alliances from competing properly.
5) Another good change would be to only allow alliances to HIT up to 12 temples. To find bp after that, fight a war.
6) The bp provided by the temples, and the planning for it, seems to have eliminated the need for real gameplay and wars. It's not really providing FUN in terms of actual combat, or strategy beyond "here's where we will colonize". Moreso than any other format, you don't have to fight any wars here to potentially win a server.
A good change would be to make all incoming attacks and supports visible to everyone on the server for all temples and Olympus, all the time. Layer this in with allowing people to defend ahead of time, and removal of the Heracles "abuse", and it at least adds some "war" and strategy back to the taking of temples and Olympus.
To summarize, without changes, Olympus end game will:
1) Be boring for most people to chug to the end,
2) Promote extreme abuse of the Heracles game mechanic, overpowering one player to change the game, and
3) Eliminate the need for true teamwork and wars, rather than simply colonizing in the right place and golding up, closing your eyes, and clicking "send".
And yet again, the best end game requiring actual gameplay strategy, is still the dreaded WW LOL.
1) Temples being static, and also not being able to see incomings or choose to defend one so others can't take it... limits strategy and is hitting dummies without requiring broader strategic play. It would require more OP-like strategy to take temples with fakes, etc., or harder work, if the entire server could always see incomings (not the actual troops, just the attacks) to each temple.
2) The bp load from the temples favor those alliances who can respawn troops the fastest instead of requiring at least some skill regarding timing. For example, if another alliance is able to try to snipe OLU, then the attacking alliance needs to work a little harder-- which would promote wars, intel gathering, and strategy.
3) Allowing spells on incoming attacks on sieges on Olympus supports the abuse of Heracles, whereby an alliance doesn't need to properly diplo or plan for attacks, but can, in essence, spend the server building DLU and Heracles favor farms to gold out loads of defense solely for the purpose of turning all incoming nukes into nothing. This is a huge glitch and should be corrected immediately. Otherwise it tips the scale even further to the overpoweredness of gold that all players seem to agree exist, yet nothing is done to correct. It also yet again eliminates strategy. Much like LMD, it's an "abuse" that gives one player too much power in the game play, with support of their second team propping them up to eliminate hundreds of attacks. This feature alone will make the end game not interesting for most players. Who wants to either build swords and crash them continuously, or build LS/flyers, only to have one lone player have "fun" and annihilate them due to an overpowered game mechanic? Since LMD was removed mid-server, this should follow the same precedent and be removed immediately as well-- but NOW, before people spend too much time setting it up. This is probably the worst feature of this end game once they made it available. If it can't be eliminated because it would be "too hard to hold Olympus", it should at least be severely nerfed, through the number of spells that can be cast over a period of time, etc. Or perhaps, since Heracles is only used to buff up end games, change it so he only generates bp when HE attacks. This would at least require time and limit the abuse. (This would be interesting on WW worlds as well, they were more fun before he showed up.)
4) Only members IN the alliance holding a temple should be allowed to defend the temple. Otherwise, it enables a powerhouse alliance to plant its supporters in tiny sub-alliances, and potentially take many more than 12 temples, disallowing other alliances from competing properly.
5) Another good change would be to only allow alliances to HIT up to 12 temples. To find bp after that, fight a war.
6) The bp provided by the temples, and the planning for it, seems to have eliminated the need for real gameplay and wars. It's not really providing FUN in terms of actual combat, or strategy beyond "here's where we will colonize". Moreso than any other format, you don't have to fight any wars here to potentially win a server.
A good change would be to make all incoming attacks and supports visible to everyone on the server for all temples and Olympus, all the time. Layer this in with allowing people to defend ahead of time, and removal of the Heracles "abuse", and it at least adds some "war" and strategy back to the taking of temples and Olympus.
To summarize, without changes, Olympus end game will:
1) Be boring for most people to chug to the end,
2) Promote extreme abuse of the Heracles game mechanic, overpowering one player to change the game, and
3) Eliminate the need for true teamwork and wars, rather than simply colonizing in the right place and golding up, closing your eyes, and clicking "send".
And yet again, the best end game requiring actual gameplay strategy, is still the dreaded WW LOL.
Last edited:
Darth Akula
Lochagos
^^^ This is kinda similar to what I saying earlier how the new EG doesn't allow for fighting really at all, in theory. Still happens, but there's virtually no need for it. Just BP farm temples and then take them and win. End of story. What I proposed would fix that and address a lot of these points just above here too. Although great catch on #2!
Blank Face
Hipparchus
Are u gonna make CQ world with Olympus for Oct or Nov??
Lethal-Bacon
Polemarch
Blank Face
Hipparchus
yes they will, another world for you to VM
And for you to lose all your players, another time, mate.
Blank Face
Hipparchus
Mine?
In terms of spells on sieges - only the beseiger can cast spells so its not so much heracles its any favor farming - one player has a whole alliance to farm in this situation and i would say that any alliance can set up a system for this. Its a strategy and you cant prevent it except by stopping favor farming.
Once the temple is owned thats different and yes the whole alliance can cast spells - this ability is being looked at so feedback from Sidon would be useful.
Once the temple is owned thats different and yes the whole alliance can cast spells - this ability is being looked at so feedback from Sidon would be useful.
OutOfCharacters
Phrourach
This I agree with-- it's not viable to see them all. I just think some form of strategy REQUIRING more interaction between alliances or actual timing of attacks, instead of barrages of attacks, is needed to make this end game more fun. As is, it's more like a chess game with luck added, and less like a war game.