Inactive Topic Strict assignment of "World Winner" awards and crowns

  • Thread starter DeletedUser25607
  • Start date

DeletedUser25607

Guest
Proposal
I'd like suggest some changes in "World Master"/crown awarding rules. These changes could be also applied backwards (to already assigned awards).

Particularly:
- only 1 alliance in a world may be awarded as a "World Winner" (for 1st to complete 4 Wonders) and "World Master" (for 1st to complete 7 Wonders)
- only those players who were in "World Winner" alliance during completion of every Wonder out of 4, are awarded as "World Winners"
- only those players who were in "World Master" alliance during completion of every Wonder out of 7, are awarded as "World Masters" and given a crown
- no other alliances/players can get these awards

Have you Checked the DNS and PSI lists in the Archives?
Is this idea similar to one that has been previously suggested?

Yes/couldn't find anything.

Reason
At present "World Master"/crown is given to every player who was in alliance at the moment of 7th Wonder completion. Also it doesn't matter if there were already other alliances with completed 7 Wonders before.
Such a generosity in awarding creates possibilities for abusing, makes the game less competitive (especially late/Wonders Races phase), inflates title/crown.

Details
There are some reasons why such changes are desirable:

- with present system, some alliances use possibility to make a very large pacts with a promise that every alliance in the pact (thus every player) will get a crown. It is possible, when alliances from pact complete their 7 Wonders after each other. Such agreements/pacts may kill the game in the world early and also inflate the award.

There are incredible "crowned noobs" around who were getting a crown from worlds like this:
http://en.grepolis.com/start/hall_of_fame?world_id=en5&action=index
(7 alliances are "World Winners")

Limiting a winner with only 1 alliance in every world will increase competition in the world and force alliances (even playing in a pact for some time) start fight each other at some point - because only 1 alliance may become the "World Master" and only people from that alliance can get crowns in the end.

- at present player may join alliance right before 7th Wonder completion to get "World Master" award and crown. This creates some possibilities for insidiousness (for example, player can send resources to members of other alliance to be put in Wonders - and join this alliance right, before 7th Wonder is finished). More restrictive rules like giving a "Winner", "Master"/crown awards only to those who were in alliance during completion of every 4 and 7 Wonders - will prevent people from changing a boat during Wonders Race and force to loyalty for the current team already after 1st Wonder was built.

- crowns should be rare - and with present system there will be everybody around crowned very soon. So were is the point in such awarding?
Therefore i'd suggest also make changes in awarding rules not only forwards (in current/future worlds) but also backwards - withdrawing crowns from those players in already finished worlds who doesn't comply.

Visual Aids
None needed

Balance

Abuse Prevention

Summary

Let's give a crown worth again!
 

DeletedUser33530

Guest
sounds like a good idea but i don't feel it's right to have this applied to past awards.
 

DeletedUser42857

Guest
just ban recruitment once ww phase starts.

solves the problem
 

DeletedUser21774

Guest
I suppose it seems fair to most players to follow this suggestion. Certainly there will be a vote.

Some of my alliances let spies who were on the opposing team join before the last wonder was done. The award was well earned as the spy worked for us just as hard a people on board the whole time.

Also I guess I have no serious aversion for letting other alliances try and win the award.

In Oropus, we completed all the wonders and most of us stuck around to continue thwarting the opponents. There IS a reason for being died-in-the-wool completers of a world.

If a team wants to quit en masse immediately after getting their crown like I see so many do - perhaps it is fitting that another, smaller, more eager team be allowed to fill the void. Maybe adjust the prize if you will to a 'secondary completer' finish.
 

DeletedUser47344

Guest
+rep.

Few things.

Agree should not effect previous worlds.
Dont think Recruitment should be stopped at WW phase as this is a war game and sometime moving players over OR tactical recruitment should be allowed.

For me the crown is pointless in current phase and this would bring fighting back but think the rewards to not justify a world win either.

50 favor boost is all a crown gives you and bragging rights (ATM bragging about a crown is POINTLESS) but maybe change the reward as well.

you could do a new God only world winners (from now not past winners) could use or and hero.... there is lots of ideas floating about...
aka pop boost in all town 'because your people respect your crown'
Maybe Inventory Goods for next world.... 20 ls per hour for 4 hours /birs/harpys/hops this is all spit balling.

i know this would give you a massive boost start of next world but surly the win should help you more then it does atm... a customer plays the game for months maybe years to win the crown a boost will keep them interested into doing the hole thing again.


All i know is i have won the crown a few times and i will NEVER go for it again the way the game is atm.... there is no pride/point or reward good enough to go through the effort of it.

Thanks
 

DeletedUser48256

Guest
Good idea.

However I hope they just scrap WWs all together. Not likely though haha
 

Estas

Phrourach
Having just gone through the World Wonder stage and winning Lapithos.. I was fortunate to have WWC's and earned the crown with my original alliance. Now, keeping agreements which were made when a merger was effected, we're rebuilding a wonder no other alliance really made an effort to complete.
Without the diplomatic efforts which led to this result, we would have had a much harder time. While it may seem as though the crowns are being scattered around like confetti, all the revolving alliance members must still pull their weight and continue to complete construction until the letter of the agreement is satisfied.
Having said that.. the process of constructing the World Wonders can be a mind numbing experience. Changes to the format would be exceedingly welcome.
 

DeletedUser

Guest
i would plus rep, but in honesty i don't want to see improvements to the age of wonders, i want to see it finished altogether and anything that encourages inno not to change the end game is a downer from me- although i agree with your idea in principle.
 

DeletedUser25607

Guest
jamovic1 said:
i would plus rep, but in honesty i don't want to see improvements to the age of wonders, i want to see it finished altogether and anything that encourages inno not to change the end game is a downer from me- although i agree with your idea in principle.
Click to expand...

At least proposed limitations will increase competition in worlds - especially in worlds with small caps like for example 50.

At present, in such worlds normally pacts of 2-3 "sisters" with shared forums are playing against each other, thus effectively overcoming limitation of low cap. And when every "sister" can finish 7 Wonders and become World Winners for that - alliance cap of the world doesn't matter at all.

If only 1 alliance will be given possibility finish all 7 Wonders - "sisters" will need fight each other at some point. Because there can be only 1 winning alliance in the end.

And such changes are much easier and faster to implement in the game than completely new end-play.
 

DeletedUser

Guest
PrettyMaria said:
At least proposed limitations will increase competition in worlds - especially in worlds with small caps like for example 50.

At present, in such worlds normally pacts of 2-3 "sisters" with shared forums are playing against each other, thus effectively overcoming limitation of low cap. And when every "sister" can finish 7 Wonders and become World Winners for that - alliance cap of the world doesn't matter at all.

If only 1 alliance will be given possibility finish all 7 Wonders - "sisters" will need fight each other at some point. Because there can be only 1 winning alliance in the end.

And such changes are much easier and faster to implement in the game than completely new end-play.
Click to expand...


This gives the best possibility ending game domination by "pacted sister" alliances and gives victory to those who earned it by competitive gameplay alone. I like this, I feel that it makes a better use of the WW feature.
 

DeletedUser21774

Guest
PrettyMaria said:
At least proposed limitations will increase competition in worlds - especially in worlds with small caps like for example 50.

If only 1 alliance will be given possibility finish all 7 Wonders - "sisters" will need fight each other at some point. Because there can be only 1 winning alliance in the end.
Click to expand...

Kinda like The Highlander
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top