Toons wins a crown but I am disgusted with it

MAC-9

Chiliarch
Just to go back to the original futboltango point

In my humble opinion this practice of rotating players to win crowns needs to be stopped, it would not by hard, all they have to do is

1) Block the changing of players between alliances once the WW stage has begun.

2) The "Victor of the World" and "Master of the World" crowns should only be issued once per world.

3) Once all 7 Wonders have been completed the "End of World" countdown clock should begin. (That would stop this endless drag, Invicta won Carystus back in Aug/Sep/Oct? so long ago I cannot remember exactly, but still we trudge on).


I understand the need for training school alliances, but you can quickly "sort the wheat from the chaff" and get the active fighters into the main alliance. (If for any reason you decide to abandon the alliance you are with, then you are left out on your own with no chance to win anything!)

This would also lead to a lot more fighting over the control of the WW islands, to prevent them being levelled up, or to demolish them once completed.

Multiple pacted alliances would probably cease to exist, because who wants to be part of a large pact, when that could prevent you from fighting for your own wonder/crown.

some of this was already addressed in rules changes made prior to cary. changing players between alliances in order to send resources and favor boosts to the wonders sites was successfully blocked w a 72 hour ban on sending res and favor to wonders upon joining an alliance, making that tactic obsolete.

victor of the world can only be obtained once and once. all players in the alliance that first completes their fourth wonder get it along with the permanent extra 50 favor storage and only those players. no one else will get it on that world.

the crowns and master of the world are the ones that get passed around. i don't like it all that much either, but it is what it is, and it is a bargaining chip.

i could be wrong, but it looks to me like this has been addressed on domination servers now where only one team can get all these awards. i am not certain though.

i like the idea to start the countdown once the first set (or only set) is issued. you could propose this in the proper place and see if you get any bites.
 

FutbolTango

Banned
Banned
Your responses are appreciated, and essentially corroborate the broad points that I am trying to make.

The main issue is that this "culture" or "system of thought" that normalizes your behaviour has started to become ingrained. This would not be a problem in itself if it would not lead to the restrictive behaviour on others. You are essentially killing the game for many other people.
You are hindering the development and the growth of the game.

I am sure that you and Ra feel justified in your decisions, and you will find countless of reasons to rationalize, justify, and promote it.

However, realistically your decisions prevented many of us from attacking you. Your decisions force many to abandon the spirit of the game and the reason why many of us came to play the game.

It would have made more difficult for you to obtain your crowns, if not prevented all together.
You have a decisive and material advantage when you convince several leaders from restraining people from attacking you.
You can deny it, but it is all hypothetical. You really do not know how it would have turned out if you would have had more people attacking you.

I also can see why you start countdowns as this is in the best interest of the heavy gold users.
Allowing the game to continue gives enjoyment to many of us who have modest budgets or for those who are willing to spend obscene amounts of gold. Not everyone can build a city from 900 points to 5,000 points in one day or gold a wall in 15 minutes.

When the game continues for long time the return on investment from gold diminishes. It is more about learning the game and experimentation.

I know that you do not like to hear it because it exposes you. Your mega alliance collusions, your excessive NAP, and your self destruction of world wonders is cheating from the perspective of the spirt of the game.

If the intention of the game was to do this, then they would simply would have said no cap to the number people in an alliance and this would not be presented as "war" game. This is essentially what you are doing. You come with big groups of people and then pact as much as possible so only a few people can attack you and then start to give hand outs to those who became your lackeys.

You have "normalized" something that prevents many of us from "playing the game". We came here to have wars with you, not to grow cities peacefully.
 

Silver Witch

Grepolis Team
Lol have you not read what we said?

We played that world with 1 pact. A pact where no one had an interest in WW. Mac has confirmed that we did not ask for a nap and at no time was a nap official. Your leaders judged it important that you had a nap with RT and were obviously concerned that if they attacked us that would put that at risk. That was not a request from us. RT was a completely separate alliance. It made no difference to us given your geographic location. Your leaders were good grep players and had their reasons. If you didnt like it you should have left the group - you and anyone else that wanted to fight us. You could have joined most of the rest of the world. Complaining 6 months later is ridiculous. You have to take responsibility for your own game not blame others for holding you back!

We wanted to play and win a world with one alliance. The only way that is achievable these days is by fighting non stop so that you end up strong enough to build them all before anyone else. We fought everyone around us but you were never close enough to fight and we had plenty of enemies. We did our best to fight everyone and stand alone - we mostly achieved it but it was the most intensive and time consuming world I have ever played. I think it is probably because of that that we did not defend those WW for more than a couple months after. Honestly we had all had enough. Every other world i have never lost a single WW after the 7 win.


Look at the alliance bp - even now when we have not played for months we have 3 x more bp than any other alliance. We won that world by fighting - not napping or hugging.

This thread is about the validity of secondary crowns - we tried very hard to play here as the game should be played and i think we did a reasonable job. We did not have even 1 full second rotation. We awarded about 10 extra crowns since that option was available and that was it. You are the one sitting here with a crown from a 3/4/5 rotation (im not watching) without breaking a single WW - our ghosts broke them all. You had months before the ghosts and no one even tried to break them.
 
Last edited:

FutbolTango

Banned
Banned
Lol have you not read what we said?

We played that world with 1 pact. A pact where no one had an interest in WW. Mac has confirmed that we did not ask for a nap and at no time was a nap official. Your leaders judged it important that you had a nap with RT and were obviously concerned that if they attacked us that would put that at risk. That was not a request from us. RT was a completely separate alliance. It made no difference to us given your geographic location. Your leaders were good grep players and had their reasons. If you didnt like it you should have left the group - you and anyone else that wanted to fight us. You could have joined most of the rest of the world. Complaining 6 months later is ridiculous. You have to take responsibility for your own game not blame others for holding you back!

We wanted to play and win a world with one alliance. The only way that is achievable these days is by fighting non stop so that you end up strong enough to build them all before anyone else. We fought everyone around us but you were never close enough to fight and we had plenty of enemies. We did our best to fight everyone and stand alone - we mostly achieved it but it was the most intensive and time consuming world I have ever played. I think it is probably because of that that we did not defend those WW for more than a couple months after. Honestly we had all had enough. Every other world i have never lost a single WW after the 7 win.


Look at the alliance bp - even now when we have not played for months we have 3 x more bp than any other alliance. We won that world by fighting - not napping or hugging.

This thread is about the validity of secondary crowns - we tried very hard to play here as the game should be played and i think we did a reasonable job. We did not have even 1 full second rotation. We awarded about 10 extra crowns since that option was available and that was it. You are the one sitting here with a crown from a 3/4/5 rotation (im not watching) without breaking a single WW - our ghosts broke them all. You had months before the ghosts and no one even tried to break them.
Yes, I have read what you wrote. I simply refuse to bow and obediently believe what you and the other leaders of Invicta/Victrix have to say. I understand that you are used to people not questioning you, but I do not buy naively your rubbish.

"You had months before the ghosts and no one even tried to break them."

Precisely. No one tried to break them because the leaders that you pacted formally and informally were refusing to let us attack you.

You know that it is easy to say for you to leave an alliance. We did but at a great cost. Our cities are vulnerable, and we will not be taken back. Not that we want anyway, but the issue is that you had conversations with leaders and based on those conversations the end result was prohibition and discouragements of attacks towards you given your tendency to be a pacifist.

As for attacking points, no doubt you have plenty, since you prey on vulnerable and isolated targets. This is what you do. You group together and then gang on a smaller target. You are not brave enough to work as single group or alliance, as the game is supposed to be played, and then fight with someone who is equal or bigger than you.

If those leaders would have allowed to attacks you, we would have grind you down. As you said, you were tired, even though you had a lot of pacts around you.
I must say. It has been easy to take your cities even though you still defend them, and still gold your walls up in 20 minutes or less.
 

Silver Witch

Grepolis Team
Lol mate you just have no idea. Our aim was to win with just one alliance and all our fighting was done with that aim. This is a strategy game.

On arrival we consolidated 54. Everyone local wanted pacts/naps and we refused to make them. Then with the consolidation still in progress we started jumping half an ocean to get to 55 to attack TEE. They were the perceived threat to us not the little guys all around. Yes we took all 54 no matter what the size of the player but that was to consolidate the core.

TEE Crumbled within a month (that was Jan Feb) - Who Cares were already attacking them so we hhad help but with TEE gone WC joined WIB and were our next target. That was probably the most challenging phase. WC were a good group, they had the support of WIB and we had fighting on the east and northern borders at the same time. There were also Red groupings in north 54 that needed removing. RT were fighting WIB so although we were pacted we had our own wars to manage. By then we had spread deep into 55 so we were getting a bit spread out.

By the time we felt secure we were into WW prep and our focus was WIB. You guys in west 44 were just not an issue. Great if you dont attack but even if you did the cities that way were not the core and most of our players used an alarm. The priority was to fight the players who could beat us.

AND NO WE DID NOT HAVE PACTS - you guys are the one with pacts/naps. All we ever had was RT. You cannot gain the bp we have from fighting 'vulnerable and isolated targets'. This is a morale world. You can only gain those levels of bp from fighting everyone (except u of course lol). Seriously look at our bp now - we have 3x the attack bp of any other alliance, 3x fighter bp and this is with a handful of guys playing around for the last 5 months while you have been having all these amazing wars.

And of course it is easy to take our cities - most players have left and the ones still there are mucking about. If u guys revolt me i send a few troops over but its not that it matters either way. None of us are taking this seriously. You are not playing the Invicta that won - you surely cannot believe that you would have had this success 8 months ago? No one else did!
 
Last edited:

Silver Witch

Grepolis Team
I think to be fair to @FutbolTango his point about second crowns is valid. From a smaller group in 44 when you are not a leader it is not easy to understand the overall world or see how tough it is for alliances oceans away. I lived it and its all coming back lol.
 

FutbolTango

Banned
Banned
@silver witch and the others being singled out, you have my respect for responding so well to the various rants, raves and ramblings of @FutbolTango.
I am reminded of 2 sayings that could apply here;
-Those that can LEAD do so... those that cant lead..beak about it
-Lead, Follow or get out of the way..
You are the folks that have been Leading
Let me remind you, this is precisely the type of authoritarian, fascist, and anachronistic type of thinking about leadership that I am fighting.
The two sayings that you are quoting summarize fascist and dictatorial thinking.

1) The thinking that people are divided between those who should and can lead and those who can not.
2) The thinking that if you do not agree with your leaders then you should be silenced or exterminated.

As for the pounding that we were giving to Invicta, this is non-sense. If you did not care, then you would not be golding the walls and stacking the cities. Some of you were even golding with biremes, but even like that you lost cities.

One on one you can not win or defend cities. Only when you gang in super groups is when you are effective. This is the reality.
Invicta is never Invicta only. It is Invicta plus one or two more groups and a bunch of NAP.
 

Kal Gordon

Phrourach
One on one you can not win or defend cities. Only when you gang in super groups is when you are effective. This is the reality.
Invicta is never Invicta only. It is Invicta plus one or two more groups and a bunch of NAP.
I don't know all the in's and out's of Invicta's diplomacy on en103. However I do know that 7 is more than 3:
  • Invicta + Invicta II, Rogue Traders.
  • Nocturnos + Vesperum + Lumina + Umbra + Molgai, Rogue Traders, Grand Duchy of Lithuania. (All of those confirmed.)

Another little example happens to involve my own alliance, Obsidian Vanguard. 5 Nocturnos branches vs 1 small non-serious alliance, and we only received limited attacks in our main territory until after we started showing inactive. There was no agreement holding anyone back in this case, as we had turned down that offer, and yet only a few players ever really attacked us. (I'd like to thank Piper Page and Thuvir for the fun little skirmishes around the cities we managed to obtain inside Nocturnos' territory.)

I've had my differences with Mac&co, as many of you will already know. However I'm not sure that it's fair for players from alliances such as Nocturnos to accuse Invicta/Victrix of relying on sheer numbers to win.
 

Harriden63

Chiliarch
Nope again, Futbol does not represent Noc.

Noc does not sit in judgement of other alliances or players, not our thing.
 

FutbolTango

Banned
Banned
1) Yes, I am not part of Nocturnos.
2) At this moment, I am an independent lone fighter and critic of the current situation in Grepolis.
3) It is fair to point out the obvious and the elephant in the room. People bunch in alliances, and engage in multiple non agression, pacts and self destroy world wonders to rotate crowns. Invicta/Victrix/Golden and many other alliances can not deny that this is happening.

Can @silver witch, @TJ Kaniben , in an straight face deny this........no, they can not deny it.
They will try to put a spin on it. People bunch in mega alliances way above the alliance cap, they NAP and organize oceans, and they self destroy world wonders. This is contrary to the spirit of the game.

It is time for the rank and file to revolt against the leaders who are stiffling the game.
It is time to remove and blindfold from players....
 

dadofwildthang

Phrourach
1) Yes, I am not part of Nocturnos.
2) At this moment, I am an independent lone fighter and critic of the current situation in Grepolis.
3) It is fair to point out the obvious and the elephant in the room. People bunch in alliances, and engage in multiple non agression, pacts and self destroy world wonders to rotate crowns. Invicta/Victrix/Golden and many other alliances can not deny that this is happening.

Can @silver witch, @TJ Kaniben , in an straight face deny this........no, they can not deny it.
They will try to put a spin on it. People bunch in mega alliances way above the alliance cap, they NAP and organize oceans, and they self destroy world wonders. This is contrary to the spirit of the game.

It is time for the rank and file to revolt against the leaders who are stiffling the game.
It is time to remove and blindfold from players
....
and you are the self chosen one, to remove the blinders from the sheep. for you know the path that should be followed and you seem prepared to lead those sheep to your vision.... again all this seems to indicate Dictatorial Thinking

so just lead an alliance in your next world and show folks how its done
 

MAC-9

Chiliarch
and you are the self chosen one, to remove the blinders from the sheep. for you know the path that should be followed and you seem prepared to lead those sheep to your vision.... again all this seems to indicate Dictatorial Thinking

so just lead an alliance in your next world and show folks how its done
i think its more like an recruitment advertisement to join Black Sails in o99 somewhere.
 

Kal Gordon

Phrourach
@FutbolTango: You were part of Nocturnos for a considerable amount of time, and you have been complaining about how your Nocturnos leaders wouldn't let you attack Invicta. That's why my points were relevant.

I don't know all their diplomacy. However I find it interesting that you are specifically criticising those few alliances for crown rotations: so far as I am aware, every single recent world has involved crown rotations. Some teams have done it minimally, others a lot more. The only case where that does not hold true is En94 Mesembria, because the team that eventually won, Thermopylae, abandoned at least half of their Mayhem/Infernal Abyss teammates when they formed. And as much as I may disagree with massed crown rotations, I still think it's better than abandoning large numbers of active teammates in the mid-late game and then using them for target practice.

I know it's controversial, but I'd say that spamming is more against the spirit of the game than WW-rotations. It is a game about teamwork, strategy and fun, not a real war simulation in which to aim to reduce other players' enjoyment. And while you may be an independent lone fighter here, on en108 (another world you are complaining about), you've affiliated yourself with a group of players that have done basically nothing but spam for the duration of the world.

@Harriden63: I don't suppose you'd care to comment on Nocturnos' diplomatic strategy?
 

FutbolTango

Banned
Banned
Thermopylae in Mesembria played the game in the way that is supposed to be.

Noctunors would not let us attack Invicta.
 

Silver Witch

Grepolis Team
Lol I give up here. I have outlined what happened.

Leadership - an alliance wouldnt last long if the majority of its members were unhappy but personally I dont think democracy works in grep. You need the ability to act quickly and a couple of main leaders is the best way for this. That doesnt stop other players contributing ideas or leading in specific roles. I'm not making any claims about my abilities but mostly my teams like to play again with me so that says something.

Seriously you cannot believe that taking cities from a winning alliance long after they won is remotely comparable to taking them from an active focused group playing properly.

Kal - good points mate but i would like to point out that Invicta II was never a full academy. We were trying to play with one alliance and at its peak there were 30 members in that one. Later on and pre WW that dropped to 15 and they were really simmers who didnt play but wanted to stay. It is impossible to build 7 first with 1 alliance unless the entire team is active so you have to be ruthless with simmers. That said I think its a team so i wouldnt take a city from an alliance member that was logging in and wanted to stay - RL takes over sometimes and I believe in friendhips. Thats why we ended up with the rotation of 10. There were a few players outside that helped.

Futbol - I think we agree to differ. Maybe another world you join us and see how we actually operate. I dont like Pacts or NAPS generally but tbh academies are useful and i wouldnt try to limit that again. You are right that these days teams operate on a larger scale and there is always a place for good but less active players. Dom has only 1 winner and I havent played that properly yet so its hard to comment.
 

Kal Gordon

Phrourach
Thermopylae in Mesembria played the game in the way that is supposed to be.
By having more heavy gold-users than the rest of the world put together, badly-behaved leadership and backroom deals (i.e. everything that you have been blaming Invicta for supposedly doing). And at least two full-scale betrayals, which is something that Invicta hasn't done.

Noctunors would not let us attack Invicta.
Yet most Nocturnos players showed great reluctance to attack players in the alliances that your leadership would let you attack. So even if your leadership would let you fight, the combination of distance and Nocturnos' defensive gameplay means that they probably wouldn't have made too much of an impact on Invicta.

Kal - good points mate but i would like to point out that Invicta II was never a full academy.
Thanks. I wasn't saying that Invicta II was full (I know that it wasn't), I was just counting all the branches. (Nocturnos' 5th branch Molgai was never full so far as I remember.) I know how difficult WW can be without having lots of alliances, as I've seen it happen on other worlds, so the rotation of a handful of extras isn't something I'd criticise. (Indeed I'd rather that than sacrificing them just to be able to brag about only having 1 branch.)
 

FutbolTango

Banned
Banned
Lol I give up here. I have outlined what happened.

Leadership - an alliance wouldnt last long if the majority of its members were unhappy but personally I dont think democracy works in grep. You need the ability to act quickly and a couple of main leaders is the best way for this. That doesnt stop other players contributing ideas or leading in specific roles. I'm not making any claims about my abilities but mostly my teams like to play again with me so that says something.

Seriously you cannot believe that taking cities from a winning alliance long after they won is remotely comparable to taking them from an active focused group playing properly.

Kal - good points mate but i would like to point out that Invicta II was never a full academy. We were trying to play with one alliance and at its peak there were 30 members in that one. Later on and pre WW that dropped to 15 and they were really simmers who didnt play but wanted to stay. It is impossible to build 7 first with 1 alliance unless the entire team is active so you have to be ruthless with simmers. That said I think its a team so i wouldnt take a city from an alliance member that was logging in and wanted to stay - RL takes over sometimes and I believe in friendhips. Thats why we ended up with the rotation of 10. There were a few players outside that helped.

Futbol - I think we agree to differ. Maybe another world you join us and see how we actually operate. I dont like Pacts or NAPS generally but tbh academies are useful and i wouldnt try to limit that again. You are right that these days teams operate on a larger scale and there is always a place for good but less active players. Dom has only 1 winner and I havent played that properly yet so its hard to comment.
1) Yes, you have outlined what happened from YOUR point of view and experience. YOU have YOUR narrative based on your experience.
This does not make it the truth or remotely what really happened. It is just a point of reference, and a partial aspect of what really happened.

2) I am glad that you are finally accepting that you think that Democracy does not work in Grepolis. This is was one of the most important points that I am trying to make. Most of you are undemocratic and authoritarian. As I said, I find this ironic, since the theme of the game is Ancient Greece where we have the cradle of democracy. Why, you guys, make it complicated and are reluctant to accept it?

3) As for your comment about the end of the game, it also verifies my point that you guys are good fighters in large groups. Individually or in small groups, you are really just average. You throw a lot of gold to put walls up or try to build troops at the last moment or build cities in one day, but there is little finesse.

Please remember that I have played with many of you with this account and other accounts in one world or another, so my comments are not completely from the outside.

You work well in large groups and communicate well with each other, but I have seen other players do things with more thought, ingenuity and strategy.
 
Last edited:

Silver Witch

Grepolis Team
1) Yes, you have outlined what happened from YOUR point of view and experience. YOU have YOUR narrative based on your experience.
This does not make it the truth or remotely what really happened. It is just a point of reference, and a partial aspect of what really happened.

2) I am glad that you are finally accepting that you do think that Democracy works in Grepolis. This is was one of the most important points that I am trying to make. Most of you are undemocratic and authoritarian. As I said, I find this ironic, since the theme of the game is Ancient Greece where we have the cradle of democracy.

3) As for your comment about the end of the game, it also verifies my point that you guys are good fighters in large groups. Individually or in small groups, you are really just average. You throw a lot of gold to put walls up or try to build cities at the last moment, but there is little finesse.

Please remember that I have played with many of you with this account and other accounts in one world or another, so my comments are not completely from the outside.

You work well in large groups and communicate well with each other, but I have seen other players do things with more thought, ingenuity and strategy.
Its a team game so working in a group is the most effective way to play. If you want to play alone thats fine but its not a reason to critisise those that play as a team. The aim is to win here.

It is also pointless to assess a players ability when they have stopped playing which is the reason you have succeeded with many of your battles. At no point has anyone claimed they were individually the best players. There was a range of ability in Invicta but you have not experienced it because you didnt fight when we were playing (ok you say you couldnt but that doesnt change the fact that you have no idea what we were like).

If u attack me now i just send a few troops over - thats fine if its not that imp. When i was playing I looked at the overall situation before defending my own cities - often defence was thin so we sniped the core revolts and defended the outlaying areas. The play was different. You are obsessed with gold - i havent used gold since we won there - not even for advisers most of the time and i bet thats the same for many. It doesnt take long to build a wall with a few boosts.
 

FutbolTango

Banned
Banned
Its a team game so working in a group is the most effective way to play. If you want to play alone thats fine but its not a reason to critisise those that play as a team. The aim is to win here.

It is also pointless to assess a players ability when they have stopped playing which is the reason you have succeeded with many of your battles. At no point has anyone claimed they were individually the best players. There was a range of ability in Invicta but you have not experienced it because you didnt fight when we were playing (ok you say you couldnt but that doesnt change the fact that you have no idea what we were like).

If u attack me now i just send a few troops over - thats fine if its not that imp. When i was playing I looked at the overall situation before defending my own cities - often defence was thin so we sniped the core revolts and defended the outlaying areas. The play was different. You are obsessed with gold - i havent used gold since we won there - not even for advisers most of the time and i bet thats the same for many. It doesnt take long to build a wall with a few boosts.
I see....you are having a problem with deduction here.

1) You do not play as a team. You play as a mega team.
2) We are raiding and conquering cities when your players are still active and golding walls and sending troops.
3) The ratio of us and against you is still in your favour. It is simply not as skewed.
4) Really... are you telling me that a wall goes from 0 to 20 in 15 minutes?
We knock you down and rather than keep fighting you then gave up. You did launch counter operations just to have your troops splattered.
Your advantage is big numbers and thats it. Even Skud is not that happy with your operations. He has seen how was done in the past by really skilled players. Those fighters were really good.