Player's Council Discussion Thread

Not open for further replies.


I believe @Miknel posted his opinion of the calls, not any finally results
doesn't violate the nda and no need to protect inno by removing his post
if anyone wants to see it, I have a copy, lmk


BT, the thing about what you said can be viewed both ways. It can be said that no wrong information is being leaked or that what gets discussed doesn't get leaked. What get discussed and is behind closed doors and due to the NDA we will never know. Tell me where do you draw the line between this as it can be used for plenty of wrong reasons. I for one will want to know about the things that matter to the players and that was put forward not to be hidden and forcing the council to not talk about what got said because of a NDA. How do I know that the press release is not just forced on them because of what they signed? They are there for one reason and to make our voice be heard and if you don't allow them to voice what they say how do we know this? We as the players want more insight into this and we want that the council are allowed to say about what is going on or else the whole Player Council is a joke. Sorry, but the whole "to not let misinformation spread" is a really weak argument and sounds more like eyewash plus the suppressive NDA that you force upon everyone.

Free flow of informations and allowing all of the council to express their opinions and thoughts freely too.
How so? If the try is messed up, you cancel..

Look, I dunno, but simple fixes are what I'm brainstorming, but the best solution by far, is an interface that can deal with it.
Because you might fire multiple waves in a snipe to get better times...

Also you might be sending multiple HCs looking for offline players.


This article should be definitely annouced by somebody... the GPC (to gather feedback from players) or the team...
@ThasossCZ brought this to our attention in another thread and thought perhaps this was a good place for discussion
there are some major research changes being proposed
1. changes to old research mostly affect myths(no longer included as lu) and separating offense and defense (ran/ phal offense only)
2. newly proposed researches include defensive research, separate researches for myths (including priestess), stone hail as an on/ off effect
3. breakthrough and revolt in the same wave (BT as an on/ off effect)
the devs asks for feedback thru the above link and it can also be fwded from here


"to not let misinformation spread" is a really weak argument
3 years ago (or 4?), I experienced our community though that a world which was launched in that time is the last one with enabled WWs as the dev team announced in a roadmap WWs revamping/replacing. Dozens (and later even hundreds) of players believed in that fact. Why? Just because ONE player didn't understand that it was just planned, without any more detailed concept being introduced. Only one player confused so many others... I don't consider it's a weak argument as something similar could/can happen on another market as well. I've described only this greater example... I remember also lots of "smaller" ones where a player read something somewhere and then he interpreted that info in (slightly) adjusted way to his co-players.

@Rachel.L However, still no disscusion exists even though it's quite actual and hot topic. :(


The main issue for me was people strategizing on how to best set their alliances up geographically in time for world wonders at the start of servers. This led to redonkulous amount colonizing and alliances trying to consolidate their cores instead of invading other oceans to take down rival alliances. Easiest way to fix Grepolis is removing colonizing and conquering ghost towns from the game altogether, if the only way to get your next city was by conquering another active player, it would feel lot more like war game instead of some sim city rip off.

This would in turn bring the active population of the server inwards to the core keeping the server active for longer and bring back the concept of "rimming" players back to the game, which is greatly missed.

While a end game is important, I think it is also important to acknowledge the achievements of the alliances that dominated the server while it was at its peak, having gold, silver and bronze milestones for alliances strive for will create additional competition and more fairly reflect who the best alliances on a server were when all is said and done. Only once all milestones have been reached or 3 years has passed that is when age of wonders should kick in.

If you guys disagree with me, that's fine but figure out and vote on what is the single biggest issue effecting Grepolis and demand that be fixed first rather than pointing out 100 of things wrong with the game at the same time, as the will not get you nowhere with the people that have devoloped this game and see it as their baby.
Last edited:
I think colonizing will stick around. Inno made it more valuable and people have learned that setting up a strong core also means setting up success. It comes down to how many cities you can fit in a small space because that gives you the closest response times for support or attacks.

I think if you want a more competitive world, Inno should eliminate crown sharing, start toying with actual new end game ideas, and probably start shifting towards merging into just one international server. This would stop mass pacting, encourage people to get back to the original premise of the game, and bring in a lot more competition which leads to better fights.

Loves You

@Bearissimus When the game first released it wasn't an issue, and sometimes you had alliances that were "Only Russians Allowed", "Only Polish Allowed"
Anyways, we all know that it would be a bad idea, since the Russians would clean the server in the first week


A lot of players can speak English. And google translate has helped me communicate. Back when there were less servers and EN was the go to, plenty of foreign teams showed up. And still we were all able to communicate.
You only have to look at Eviction Notice, a large part of their core was Balkan players

theres been plenty of french alliances, balkan alliances, polish alliances have played EN servers.

We wont say anything about the Korean alliance that came over recently, it didnt work out so well with them but that was nothing to do with eh language barrier..


so @Baudin Toolan, since the inner council can't keep us up-to date with personal accounts/ summaries, will you be posting that official report soon? been more than a week since you removed the gpc members' posts.

Baudin Toolan

Grepolis Team
I don't have access to the report that will be/is being written up by the inner council members of the various participating servers. That being said in regards to full transparency our own council is in a bit of disarray. I'm hoping to have that sorted in the next 24 hours or so but as for when the report will come out I do not know.


so the gpc members actually write the report, even tho they are not "communication specialists"?
but it has to be approved by inno legal first before it is disseminated to the players, is that it?
per usual I am very confused

hope our ppl can get straightened out as six months is dwindling

Baudin Toolan

Grepolis Team
The communication experts part is in reference to discussing inaccurate information in a way that the community accidentally viewed as a final result when the discussion with Innogames was not complete. The final report being written will be done by the Inner Council once Innogames and the council finish up the discussion on game related matters. This way the information given out is accurate. I don't know how long the report is, how long it will take to compile, if this is the first of multiple reports, if it will have cool pictures, etc. The information I have is that the report is written entirely by the council after Innogames says this round of discussion is complete and the information discussed is accurate.
Not open for further replies.