Possible change to End-game

georgiopolus

Phrourach
There seems to have been a lot of discussion been going on about the World Wonders End-game and wanting something to replace it. This is just a thought I had on this subject and a possible improvement.
.
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. (Easily seen in the Rankings)
b./ An Alliance must have the greatest number of ABPs. ( Also easily seen in the Rankings )
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.
e./ "Ruler of the World" award goes to any alliance fulfilling a, b. and c. but not d.

This would involve very little work for Inno to implement and a Countdown could be displayed to all players from when rule a/ and rule b/ are satified, and seven WWs have been built.

This would, I believe provide, an insentive for players and alliances to continue fighting till the last second of a world.

Look forwards to your thoughts and suggestions.
 
Last edited:

ImPreeetySure

Phrourach
It would be hard to keep the ABP's going while defending all 7 wonders for 2 months, whereas every other alliance would almost exclusively be getting ABP in that time from attacking your wonders.
 

georgiopolus

Phrourach
A and B,yes
but i'd rather see WW being scrapped altogether
WW is an end-game which has been thought up by INNO which, sadly has not provided an end of game scenario. Rather than asking INNO to come up with something completely new, which would cause a lot of work for them, this idea would provide for an end of game end-game. There would be an actual winning alliance ie: Master of the World award. No more of two three or more alliances claiming to have won ( especially after the first winning alliance has left)

It would be hard to keep the ABP's going while defending all 7 wonders for 2 months, whereas every other alliance would almost exclusively be getting ABP in that time from attacking your wonders.
This is the whole point of having to meet the three conditions for two months, it will encourage ALL aliances to continue attacking. The Master of the World award should mean what it says.
"Ruler of the Ocean" can be earned simply by having a city on an island at the world's edge. Too easy.
"Ruler of the World" can be earned by building 7 wonders, a little bit harder to achieve but not too difficult.
"Master of the World" should be only awarded to an alliance which can prove it is the best by meeting the required standards ie:- a. b. and c. of these rules. The countdown not only providing an incentive for others to attack but also to provide an End of Game warning.

The general feeling of dissatisfaction with WW End-game seems to be that it doesn't really provide an end of game, whereas my suggestion would seem to do so. The building of WWs becomes an important part of the game and the fighting part is continued untill the last second. Remember that the game will not end untill All conditions are met.
 

Bond 007

Strategos
A new endgame has been in demand for like 3 years now, and it doesn't look like its going to happen anytime soon. At this point I have absolutely zero expectations that we will get a new one.
 

georgiopolus

Phrourach
It would seem to me to be the simplest and most easily achievable solution for INNO. This idea would keep players interested in carrying on playing at WW stage because the game is not won untill the game is over.
For INNO it has the benefit of not having to devise a "new" end of game scenatio, for only a few lines of code to implement the Rule changes. This would be a "win / win" for both INNO and the Players.
 

Rock5

Strategos
Having no endgame will create a burden on Innogames as worlds require money to operate.

A more viable endgame would be a "no endgame" like Joseph Nieves just said, However, when the population reaches under say 300-400 players, the world closes and the alliance with the most cities win.
 

georgiopolus

Phrourach
At present when an World has less than 300 active players the world closes this proposal does not affect this rule. However at present when a world is "won" the world stays open, although most of the "active" players have left, untill the activity drops below 300.
This GAME is GREPOLIS. "Come and build an Empire" It is a War Game which means that wars have to be fought and cities won in order to be successful.
Without an "end-game" a world will drag on and on with reduced activity which is actually bad for INNO, who have to maintain that world with reducing returns. Just look at the flurry of activity created at the opening of a New World which is good for INNO. This proposal will help to keep that activity going through the whole game, even in the "Age of Wonders" because there is a definite goal to aim for.
The "Master of the World" award can only have one winner, which closes that world, and it has to be "won"
I do not see many worlds where one alliance can dominate the world enough to win uncontested.
The End-game has to produce a winner and an end of game. When a game is over we all look for another World to open either to seek revenge or to prove our superiority.
Remember this is a War Game not Simm City if you find it too tough then you either learn to play the game better or go play with your dollies.
 

Joseph Nieves

Strategos
Without an "end-game" a world will drag on and on with reduced activity which is actually bad for INNO, who have to maintain that world with reducing returns. Just look at the flurry of activity created at the opening of a New World which is good for INNO. This proposal will help to keep that activity going through the whole game, even in the "Age of Wonders" because there is a definite goal to aim for.
The "Master of the World" award can only have one winner, which closes that world, and it has to be "won"
I do not see many worlds where one alliance can dominate the world enough to win uncontested.
The End-game has to produce a winner and an end of game. When a game is over we all look for another World to open either to seek revenge or to prove our superiority.
Remember this is a War Game not Simm City if you find it too tough then you either learn to play the game better or go play with your dollies.
I wouldn't say no endgame is bad. Hyperborea is way more active then many 3rd gen and 4th gen worlds after it that are still open. Same with the former hero worlds, Bellerophon and Achilles. All three of them have been successful for 3 years in the running and still maintained a good portion of active players without endgames. Even go back further to the first few worlds on this server and they played without an endgame for quite some time, pretty sure they didn't want an endgame either.

Of course though your idea is good and Inno is probably not going to go back to having no endgame. Just making the case that it worked a lot better than wonders did.
 

figtree2

Polemarch
These old worlds without endgames are still pretty active and have wars going on. 19k LS dying in one city is a big battle for a world without conquests.
 

BDG2

Phrourach
I wouldn't say no endgame is bad. Hyperborea is way more active then many 3rd gen and 4th gen worlds after it that are still open. Same with the former hero worlds, Bellerophon and Achilles. All three of them have been successful for 3 years in the running and still maintained a good portion of active players without endgames. Even go back further to the first few worlds on this server and they played without an endgame for quite some time, pretty sure they didn't want an endgame either.
I started playing on EN 9. There was no endgame when we started. We played for a long time and then the end game was introduced. Nobody was set up for that style of endgame. Back then, the goal was to dominate your ocean and then go take another one. There were not nearly as many pacts because academies actually had a purpose. You could develop players over the course of a year. None of us wanted WW. We were more than happy lobbing nukes at each other on a regular basis. There are only a handful of players from that world that I run into now because they don't seem to want to want to play resource management and fill a wonder.
 

Joseph Nieves

Strategos
I started playing on EN 9. There was no endgame when we started. We played for a long time and then the end game was introduced. Nobody was set up for that style of endgame. Back then, the goal was to dominate your ocean and then go take another one. There were not nearly as many pacts because academies actually had a purpose. You could develop players over the course of a year. None of us wanted WW. We were more than happy lobbing nukes at each other on a regular basis. There are only a handful of players from that world that I run into now because they don't seem to want to want to play resource management and fill a wonder.
Yeah that honestly sounds great. Under that the endgame would pretty much be whichever alliance is on top when the under 300 player countdown timer begins. Unless it never got to under 300 people which would be awesome too, in that case we might see some more worlds that have a lot of oceans filled up :D
 

georgiopolus

Phrourach
I agree with you BDG2 and although I did not start playing until HELLORUS EN56 the Age of Wonders has always brought the same complaints in each world. After Wonders have been built many leave since it seems pointless to continue, a few even leave because of "The age of Wonders", and either join another World, if one is available, or take an extended break from the game.
Hopefully if my idea is accepted it will encourage these players to stay and continue fighting either to maintain their status or to increase their chances of winning.
I have posted this idea in the IDEAS section for consideration