What Do You Hate About World Wonders?

  • Thread starter DeletedUser41523
  • Start date

DeletedUser25202

Guest
First I'd like to point that I really like WW addition to the game - it makes whole thing more complex. Leaders have to gather good fighters, but also force them to build their cities to desired levels, which often they hate to do. Leaders have to make people act together in different ways... other than only fighting. So I vote against removing WW from game.

What I dislike about WW:

1. Fact that crown can be given again and again. What is the point of the crown if it is given next day after the race is won?

2. Lately many servers were ruined due to big mergers. Basically, many worlds would end divided in 2 blocks and it was only question who will merge better. I'd like to see some way of limiting alliances taking in new members just before WW. These last minutes deals and mergers really made game being all about politics.
 

DeletedUser41523

Guest
I agree. Though I think we should figure out something for pacted teams. But that's largely due to me not liking to end pacts. Especially if its to one up people and move up in the world.

I do have another idea for a WW revamp though, i'd be okay with posting it later.

@Loves You Sorry you feel that way and if I gave that impression that it should just be my ideas. But if anyone does have an idea that they want thrown in the hat, I have a revamp thread dedicated to this topic in Inner. Feel free to PM them to me and I'll stick them in as well. The more the merrier and even better, it won't get stuck away in the DNS. I'll even ask about being allowed to screen shot them being posted as proof. :)

The reason why we're gathering what people hate is because we want to see what should be left out of any idea and whether we're looking at a wonder revamp or going to a completely new drawing board. This is helpful for others wanting to make an idea as well, as they now have an idea of what people would like to see removed from a future end game idea.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

DeletedUser54161

Guest
@VanDalgyon
The only people that complain about people "cycling" to get the crown, are those that already have a crown!
Every post, and I mean EVERY post that I have seen on this external forum of people complaining about "Crown Cycling", are from players with crowns. Yes, I just looked up your stats to, and to my suprise, you won Worlds en34, and en80
You need to realize that most people "Do Not" make it to the end of the world. It's not because they don't want to, or because they "Don't use gold", but the fact that it
A)Real-Life Gets in the way and they move on
B)The Excitement of a "New" World wears off, and they begin simming to slowly afk, or try a new world. and lastly we have
C)Getting to WW takes almost a full year, and staying around for that long is a big commitment, which many players don't care for

Since WW takes so long to reach, Pacting is almost a given, as players want to be guaranteed a crown for their time commitment, or there are so few players left, and individual players have many more cities to their names, that taking a few cities from "Player X" does not have a big impact on the game, or warmap at large.

@The Smilodon Fatalis
You did not read my post, you stated exactly what I thought you would say, and it only proves my point.

I think I will just let you guys have your fun; and I will stick to my part of the externals
 

DeletedUser46395

Guest
You're right that it's people who already have a crown that don't like cycling for them, because they know how incredibly boring it is.
In terms of gameplay, it would be massively freshened up if cycling didn't exist and it's hard to see how that wouldn't be good for the game.
Aside from that, my biggest personal issue with WWs is that it's the only endgame option; I would much prefer to see alternatives as well.
Oh, and surely an endgame should, er, end the game.
 

DeletedUser25202

Guest
@Loves You

I was not complaining at all, but just stated what I dislike... cos that was what was asked. And that's got nothing to do with me having crowns already. I simply believe that end game would be more interesting if crown is given once only. I am sure there would be more top alliances fighting for it, instead 2 blocks that became regular picture lately.

I understand RL can keep one away from it, but there are other games with different dynamics, so people can get crown elsewhere. This game is design as it is, it is one year process and if you wanna get a crown you have to find a way to work for it for longer period of time.

And what is the point if someone who was there all the time and was helping his team to the top has same reward as someone who was there for 2 months and was helping by sending few resources? Like that crown is next to nothing.

Just IMO :)
 

DeletedUser32254

Guest
I find the WW's boring. Sending res to end a war game just doesn't do it for me.

Some sort a battle ending. sans gold, straight up fight for the top x number of alliances maybe

Perhaps a new, large, island appears with 80 massively prestacked with defense self defending type cities, same TT from any city in a world, Alliance that takes and holds the most cities for a given time wins.
 

DeletedUser46395

Guest
Vorrian said:
I find the WW's boring. Sending res to end a war game just doesn't do it for me.
Click to expand...

Point is it's not a war game, it's a resource management game in which war is one way to gain the key resource, cities.

Doesn't mean I wouldn't rather see something like your suggestion, but WWs are actually a logical (of rather boring) endgame.
 

DeletedUser41523

Guest
@Loves You

Actually, I read your post fully. I didn't address the previous parts because I thought you read Phi's comments. I think its fair to keep the door open for other people. As much as I like to play the narcissist, its not all about me. I don't want to just push something without hearing from other people. Last I checked, doing things without getting meaningful feedback was the exact type of thing that resulted in a need for a player's council. And when the council wasn't getting feedback or communicating previously, it led to a lot of confusion and annoyance.

As for not having my own ideas, maybe read the DNS before insinuating that. Or read the Olous forums where I suggested a scrap. Or the Acropolis where I suggested both a scrap and a different revamp idea that I have dubbed "The Hunger Games WW Revamp". I also have my own completed full wonder revamp idea that I worked on over the summer but have only posted to inner (I preferred the scrap idea in the end). And just in case you thought I was a one trick pony, you'll be overjoyed to know I'm working on a noob protection idea that would be applied to some worlds and should also challenge good players as well.

The reason I asked for this feedback was because I want to know what to tweak or if I should go back to the drawing board entirely. I ran on trying to bring a better end game for everyone, so yeah, I'm going to definitely put a lot of effort into getting this right and make sure its something that people can enjoy.
 

DeletedUser32254

Guest
Bearissimus said:
Point is it's not a war game, it's a resource management game in which war is one way to gain the key resource, cities.

Doesn't mean I wouldn't rather see something like your suggestion, but WWs are actually a logical (of rather boring) endgame.
Click to expand...


LOL You just ruined it for me. I think I will quit and go into something exciting like, chartered accountancy! --nod to MPFC
 

jmccaffrey

Phrourach
WW is heart of the Game. I would not like to see the gone just change a bit. This game is about War. So let War be apart of building the WW.

Here are the changes I like to see that could increase the need to take and hold cities.
  • Add that in addition to holding all cities on the island, that each player has to have 50 cities or more (Base on world speed) to complete level 10 (This will ensure battles all over the game and not just by WW)
  • Increase reward for holding a WW (This will help stop one alliance from giving it to others)
  • Add one more WW so that there is 8 WW
  • Move the Game Win to 4 WW to 7 WW (This ensure the best of the best win the game and not just tricks)
 

DeletedUser31385

Guest
jmccaffrey said:
WW is heart of the Game. I would not like to see the gone just change a bit. This game is about War. So let War be apart of building the WW.

Here are the changes I like to see that could increase the need to take and hold cities.
  • Add that in addition to holding all cities on the island, that each player has to have 50 cities or more (Base on world speed) to complete level 10 (This will ensure battles all over the game and not just by WW)
  • Increase reward for holding a WW (This will help stop one alliance from giving it to others)
  • Add one more WW so that there is 8 WW
  • Move the Game Win to 4 WW to 7 WW (This ensure the best of the best win the game and not just tricks)
Click to expand...
The thing is... these are the seven world wonders of the ancient world. There isn't an eighth to add.
 

DeletedUser21777

Guest
Original enquiry: "What single aspect of wonders do you dislike the most?".

The "World Wonders" age changes the Grepolis world in many ways. This satisfies the original charger of a "single aspect". As to HOW World Wonders changes a world requires a somewhat longer explanation.vor

Upon entry to the "World Wonders" stage:

1. Players leave, because they do not like the WW, or do not understand the WW, or their alliance leadership has decided to not pursue WW.
2. The world changes, as everything is related to resources and favor production, while stacking WW-island alliance members with more biremes that could EVER fit in any Greek or Roman era harbor.
3. The strongest alliances, along with their clones, using "roll-in,roll-out" techniques for maximized resource and favor production.
4. The strongest alliance gets the four WW "Victor" and, after some competition, the "Crown" of the world. At this point, many just throw in the towel, and look for a new world.
5. For those players and alliances not interested in the WW mania, entrance to the World Wonder era foreshadows the end of the world.. When the player count hits 300 (or less), the world closes in 28 days. (Apologies to Sandra Bullock).

Improvements might include:

1. Do NOT close invitations and world registration to those worlds entering WW era.
2. Require alliances to hold World Wonders until world ending. (This will be most interesting!)
3. Change the requirements for establishing and upgrading World Wonders. The resource demand render the game to a resource management problem, and no longer a game, The favor requirements for a short time "improvement" are unreasonable to the point that many do not attempt "acceleration".
4. Reduce the impact of "roll-in"/"roll-out", requiring a time period (such as 7 days) for re-joining an alliance.
5. Offer alternative paths to "winning" a world, not requiring building World Wonders.

Other than that, Mrs. Lincoln, how did you like the play?
 

DeletedUser46395

Guest
MacAnailigh said:
Original enquiry: "What single aspect of wonders do you dislike the most?".

The "World Wonders" age changes the Grepolis world in many ways. This satisfies the original charger of a "single aspect". As to HOW World Wonders changes a world requires a somewhat longer explanation.vor

Upon entry to the "World Wonders" stage:

1. Players leave, because they do not like the WW, or do not understand the WW, or their alliance leadership has decided to not pursue WW.
2. The world changes, as everything is related to resources and favor production, while stacking WW-island alliance members with more biremes that could EVER fit in any Greek or Roman era harbor.
3. The strongest alliances, along with their clones, using "roll-in,roll-out" techniques for maximized resource and favor production.
4. The strongest alliance gets the four WW "Victor" and, after some competition, the "Crown" of the world. At this point, many just throw in the towel, and look for a new world.
5. For those players and alliances not interested in the WW mania, entrance to the World Wonder era foreshadows the end of the world.. When the player count hits 300 (or less), the world closes in 28 days. (Apologies to Sandra Bullock).

Improvements might include:

1. Do NOT close invitations and world registration to those worlds entering WW era.
2. Require alliances to hold World Wonders until world ending. (This will be most interesting!)
3. Change the requirements for establishing and upgrading World Wonders. The resource demand render the game to a resource management problem, and no longer a game, The favor requirements for a short time "improvement" are unreasonable to the point that many do not attempt "acceleration".
4. Reduce the impact of "roll-in"/"roll-out", requiring a time period (such as 7 days) for re-joining an alliance.
5. Offer alternative paths to "winning" a world, not requiring building World Wonders.

Other than that, Mrs. Lincoln, how did you like the play?
Click to expand...
The game is a resource management game...
But you're somewhat out of date. Inno put a change in earlier this year which stopped people cycling through for res and favour dumps by requiring them to have been a member of the alliance for 48 hours before they can send.
And the use of favour engines means that acceleration is now the key factor in who wins. Believe me I know, as we won the first world under the new rules.
As for idea 2, far from being interesting it would kill the game. Could be 2 or 3 years....
However, if the world ended say 3 months after completion of WWs and there was a special award for being in possession of WWs at that time, that COULD be interesting.
 

DeletedUser21774

Guest
Nothing. I hate nothing about the Wonders game. They could improve it though. THAT I have ideas for.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

DeletedUser345

Guest
While my favourite days playing this game were pre-world wonders, so I'm always going to be a fan of no endgame, I'm going to be realistic and accept a return to this is not going to happen. I would, however, like see an increased emphasis on fighting in the WW race, my suggestion would be;

World wonders can only be built in core oceans.
Victor = either 4 world wonders or 66%+ control of 3 core oceans.
 

DeletedUser21774

Guest
Besided Revolt / Conquest they could have Wonders / Dominion worlds. In the Dominion worlds, the winner doesn't have to be the last man standing, but the alliance that has decided dominion over the world - (measures: oceans, bp, cities, players, some measure such that the game algorithm determines that no other alliance stands a chance to knock them out for the foreseeable future).
 

OutOfCharacters

Phrourach
WW is totally split from the rest of the game. Leading up to WW, it's about teamwork-- small alliances can dominate in war due to teamwork, strategy, and tactics... skill is still required even though the increased gold usage has hurt that through the years. Then all of a sudden the game shifts to reward the teams that can gather the most simmers under their belts to funnel res for a crown. The fun is over, the real fighting is over, skill isn't required. Previous simmers stay in the game or even join at WW time hoping to grab a crown by helping the frontrunner.

I've won crowns in worlds I don't think I deserved them in-- I was half-heartedly playing for months and then just fed res to the right big dog. And I've not gotten one in worlds that I feel the most proud of for how we were able to dominate our opponents. Those were my favorite, and those are the worlds I feel we WON. Inno's system should be rewarding that, IMO.

If we MUST have WW, then I think it would be interesting for the WW period--or maybe even for the entire server-- if you were only allowed to trade res to the people in your own alliance. Make the alliance limit mean something, so we all care more about who each person is on our team, and so people can't band together at WW time and totally change the server just to get everyone a silly crown. I don't find the crown meaningful at all. I would much rather see the end game require true skill. For me the WW era means the end of the server being interesting. I only stick around because I like my teammates (usually, lol...)

And just because people have won crowns doesn't mean anything about their ability. Similarly, the attacker/defender awards don't mean much since they keep going as the world winds down. While we're at it, let's make those more meaningful too by limiting them to when the real fighting is happening...

I don't care about any of the awards though-- I play to keep learning and work with fun people. I really like some of the ocean domination ideas out there... I'd love to see some end game changes that reward skill.
 

DeletedUser

Guest
Being able to capture an enemy wonder (by having a greater % of taken cities on their island) rather than just destroy it's last level would make a significant enough difference for the fighters to stay into late game, however I heard the issue with none simming endgames was something to do with severe server lag. Say each alliance is only allowed to build up to 3 wonders and has to take the fourth from another alliance in order to win. As for ocean domination, that would suit alliances like EN down to the ground, since they always send out 4-5 alliances to occupy each ocean of the core straight away, often killing their worlds before they even started.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top