DeletedUser
Guest
This idea is now up for a vote. The poll will be open for 2 weeks. This poll will close on June 20th. It is also a public poll.
Last edited by a moderator:
- Status
DeletedUser5554
Guest
id say keep one to no morale just because if a player stumbles in there he or she knows what to do. personally the first time i came to a morale world i had NO idea what morale was until about a month in
DeletedUser
Guest
i don't like the idea, there are loads of worlds, join one, make some mistakes, learn. If there is spare server space for a training world plonk a new actual world down... then again if a training world is configured and the masses like it I guess it is required.
DeletedUser
Guest
The main selling point of this, at least in my eyes, is that it resets. This means that every time it resets you can try something new, attempt different starts, etc, without having to restart yourself on a different world.
I voted yes, because I love the idea, but I do have one fear. I have noticed that there are a number of players (quite a significant number, in fact) who do not play Grepolis for the long-term "world winner" game that it is, instead playing on a short-term basis to play for the first few weeks and then move on to the next world.. I hope that, if implemented, these training worlds will be used for what they are intended, training and having fun, rather than just becoming a playground for those players who cannot commit to one world long-term.
DeletedUser
Guest
the best way to help ensure that training worlds are meant for "training" is for some "veterans" to help out by making alliances that cater to training players as opposed to conquering the world . . . i know if this were to get implemented, i would make an account and alliance to help new players grasp the basic strategy and different aspects of the game
DeletedUser
Guest
It should run like a tutorial. Although that would get rid of nubes 
DeletedUser20429
Guest
It should run like a tutorial. Although that would get rid of nubes
That's a good thing as it stops simming.
DeletedUser
Guest
fully in favour of this idea if only for the fact it might get rid of messages like"Why are you attacking me?"
DeletedUser
Guest
Yes, I love the idea. It would be perfect if there was a world that could fully train you so you know what you are doing, for new players and experienced players.
DeletedUser
Guest
Hadn't thought of that, actually. Quite a good idea - if it ever happens I may have to do something similar. That would, I suppose, depend on the alliance cap though.
High alliance cap would allow for more people to fit into training alliances, but it might also encourage people to form MRAs when they enter real worlds (if they consider large alliances to be the norm).. while low alliance caps would be better for encouraging conflict amongst training players, but that might end up with several elitist alliances so not so great for helping new players learn in an alliance.
DeletedUser
Guest
One of the purposes of training worlds is to stop the mass-release of regular worlds with morale, by giving less experienced players a chance to learn the game in an easier world... well to put it one way.
Some good points, but that is an unavoidable abuse for either higher or lower caps. There are some dynamics you're missing; elite alliances would be less likely to form due to morale being present, and MRAs will still have the usual difficulty of internal interests and spies to always be effective.
DeletedUser24356
Guest
Come on please people vote yes think how happy noobs would be to learn to play before entering the real game
DeletedUser26213
Guest
There would have to be 21 more people voting no on this for it to fail
DeletedUser
Guest
If I remember correctly, we need 75% to pass, though I may be wrong.
DeletedUser24356
Guest
you are correct and this poll failed
DeletedUser
Guest
Those who voted no must really enjoy the concept of having morale released as a world setting as often as it does now in order to reject this idea. How insightful...
DeletedUser
Guest
NOOOO! It failed! I thought it would be a great idea. Although why 75%, say we had 51% that would be the majority?
DeletedUser
Guest
51% pass rates are dubious, then all manner of nonsense would get through.
DeletedUser8396
Guest
it is what i like to call a 'necessary evil'
DeletedUser
Guest
I really like this idea. Will it be up for re-vote? If so, perhaps there could be different practice worlds:
Attack/defense: that way, people who wanted to practice defense could do so against those who wished to practice offense. It would also make for a cool way to determine the best strategist for an alliance 2 month resets.
Total noob: the name says it all, a place where noobs can practice with slow unit speeds, slow conquer speeds, fast build times, and more. 4 month resets.
Building: a place to find the quickest way to get a huge city, featuring fast build times and a cap on units, exceeding which will cause you to be moved to attack/defense. Frequent resets would aid in preventing this from becoming a sim city world. 1 month resets.
Attack/defense: that way, people who wanted to practice defense could do so against those who wished to practice offense. It would also make for a cool way to determine the best strategist for an alliance
2 month resets.Total noob: the name says it all, a place where noobs can practice with slow unit speeds, slow conquer speeds, fast build times, and more. 4 month resets.
Building: a place to find the quickest way to get a huge city, featuring fast build times and a cap on units, exceeding which will cause you to be moved to attack/defense. Frequent resets would aid in preventing this from becoming a sim city world. 1 month resets.
- Status