Passed World Wonder Modification

[DeletedUser]

Dont really like this as it still makes simming and turtling a focal point, I would prefer a system where you maybe have to build 4 wonders under the current system AND you also have to build 4 of something similiar to the wonders but using abp instead of resources. This would make it so that your alliance would have to be well rounded and couldn't just turtle up and sim you would actually have to remain aggressive.

 

[DeletedUser]

Dont really like this as it still makes simming and turtling a focal point, I would prefer a system where you maybe have to build 4 wonders under the current system AND you also have to build 4 of something similiar to the wonders but using abp instead of resources. This would make it so that your alliance would have to be well rounded and couldn't just turtle up and sim you would actually have to remain aggressive.

If you actually read the thread, there is an idea like that, where abps are also required in every level.

 

[DeletedUser]

I'm sorry I didn't read through the whole thread as that is a lot to read. I read your top post which had the idea and commented with my thoughts on it. Is that not the point of these threads?

 

[Varun]

I'm sorry I didn't read through the whole thread as that is a lot to read. I read your top post which had the idea and commented with my thoughts on it. Is that not the point of these threads?

No. You have to get the gist of the idea, its pro's and con's. Don't post without reading. Believe me, I've had my share of exp. when I did that before.

 

[DeletedUser]

What about some way to give an attacker an advantage when going against World Wonder cities? To encourage more conquest attempts against active World Wonder cities, without the attacker being completely overwhelmed by a stacked defence, wall and tower.

maybe 75% max luck and a boost in morale would work? (130% morale)

 

[DeletedUser31480]

I never knew so many people shared my view on the end game of Grepolis at the moment...

My 2 cents to the idea,

I think the game has people playing for various reasons, some like to sim, some to attack/defend so on... I personally think WW completion/world victory should NOT be focussed on one type of game-play type to build i.e I think all seven wonders should have their own type of building raw material....

This will not only make WW interesting it will become engaging for all types of players....

My Proposal

The Colossus of Rhodes - Should need ABP to build. NOTE - This ABP should only account the ones only in WW era AND should account ABP against other alliances (To prevent internal training and sacrificing)....

The Pyramids of Giza in Egypt - Should need Resources to build, same as now.(Lets give some chance to simmers!!).

The Temple of Artemis at Ephesus - Should need DBP to build. NOTE - Similar in idea to ABP as above, however since the game is slightly skewed towards defence I think the requirements should be higher than ABP. The only downside I think is in passive worlds this WW will never get built...

The Statue of Zeus by Phidias in Olympia - Should be built based the number of conquests an alliance has earned. (Sounds crazy I know ). This counter like ABP should kick in only in WW era and should include against other alliances only...

The Tomb of King Mausolus II at Halicarnassus - This is based on the population that is assigned to build the wonder. To elaborate, each city can assign some free pop to build this WW starting from 1 to max pop... More population assigned to the WW will ensure it is completed quick. However, once the population is assigned they cannot be used for training in Barracks/harbour etc... To ensure fairplay assigning pop to WW should have a lead time of say 6hrs.... I know this idea is similar to resource pooling but the x factor I think is if you sim too hard the city will become empty and easier for others to overrun.

The Hanging Gardens of Semiramis in Babylon - Favour to build.

The lighthouse on the island of Pharos at Alexandria - Okie so I have run out of ideas sadly, so I am gonna invent something here, bear with me. To build this WW treasures are required, treasures will be spread across the world and alliances need to send ships with units to locate these treasures like scouting rims of the world. This is just a concept at this stage and still not an idea yet also, this will involve some new game design so I understand will not be simple!

Balance:
One important thing in the above suggested idea is balance. Since each WW uses different type of resources there is a good chance that one WW will become complete in Day 1 whereas some might take months to complete. I think we need to call our friend "Math" to assign the value requirement of each resource based on the number of active members the world has. For e.g: If world A has lets say 1000 actives, then ABP required should be a factor of 1000. If World B has 5000 actives then its requirement will be the ABP factor*5000.

So lets assume the ABP factor is 100 it effectively means 100K ABP is required for World A alliances to complete Level 1 of the WW. As the level increases I propose the ABP factor should increase as well.

If the Alliance cap in World A is 100 then in an ideal world each member of the alliance is expected to contribute 1K ABP, which is roughly 35% - 40% of the city pop. So I propose that resources required to complete Level 1 of WW requiring resources in World A should be 35%*25K (Max warehouse size)*1000. This will ensure that the world is balanced not only internally and externally to other worlds.

NOTE: The above example is called "napkin" math and is not accurate, it will take some time and number crunching to get into the real numbers. It is used to explain the concept so dont get bogged down with details.

 

[DeletedUser18132]

That idea is actually really good.

 

[DeletedUser11965]

Not bad at all

 

[DeletedUser14786]

I never knew so many people shared my view on the end game of Grepolis at the moment...

My 2 cents to the idea,

I think the game has people playing for various reasons, some like to sim, some to attack/defend so on... I personally think WW completion/world victory should NOT be focussed on one type of game-play type to build i.e I think all seven wonders should have their own type of building raw material....

This will not only make WW interesting it will become engaging for all types of players....

My Proposal

The Colossus of Rhodes - Should need ABP to build. NOTE - This ABP should only account the ones only in WW era AND should account ABP against other alliances (To prevent internal training and sacrificing)....

The Pyramids of Giza in Egypt - Should need Resources to build, same as now.(Lets give some chance to simmers!!).

The Temple of Artemis at Ephesus - Should need DBP to build. NOTE - Similar in idea to ABP as above, however since the game is slightly skewed towards defence I think the requirements should be higher than ABP. The only downside I think is in passive worlds this WW will never get built...

The Statue of Zeus by Phidias in Olympia - Should be built based the number of conquests an alliance has earned. (Sounds crazy I know ). This counter like ABP should kick in only in WW era and should include against other alliances only...

The Tomb of King Mausolus II at Halicarnassus - This is based on the population that is assigned to build the wonder. To elaborate, each city can assign some free pop to build this WW starting from 1 to max pop... More population assigned to the WW will ensure it is completed quick. However, once the population is assigned they cannot be used for training in Barracks/harbour etc... To ensure fairplay assigning pop to WW should have a lead time of say 6hrs.... I know this idea is similar to resource pooling but the x factor I think is if you sim too hard the city will become empty and easier for others to overrun.

The Hanging Gardens of Semiramis in Babylon - Favour to build.

The lighthouse on the island of Pharos at Alexandria - Okie so I have run out of ideas sadly, so I am gonna invent something here, bear with me. To build this WW treasures are required, treasures will be spread across the world and alliances need to send ships with units to locate these treasures like scouting rims of the world. This is just a concept at this stage and still not an idea yet also, this will involve some new game design so I understand will not be simple!

Balance:
One important thing in the above suggested idea is balance. Since each WW uses different type of resources there is a good chance that one WW will become complete in Day 1 whereas some might take months to complete. I think we need to call our friend "Math" to assign the value requirement of each resource based on the number of active members the world has. For e.g: If world A has lets say 1000 actives, then ABP required should be a factor of 1000. If World B has 5000 actives then its requirement will be the ABP factor*5000.

So lets assume the ABP factor is 100 it effectively means 100K ABP is required for World A alliances to complete Level 1 of the WW. As the level increases I propose the ABP factor should increase as well.

If the Alliance cap in World A is 100 then in an ideal world each member of the alliance is expected to contribute 1K ABP, which is roughly 35% - 40% of the city pop. So I propose that resources required to complete Level 1 of WW requiring resources in World A should be 35%*25K (Max warehouse size)*1000. This will ensure that the world is balanced not only internally and externally to other worlds.

NOTE: The above example is called "napkin" math and is not accurate, it will take some time and number crunching to get into the real numbers. It is used to explain the concept so dont get bogged down with details.

This is a brilliant idea.

 

[DeletedUser]

If you don't mind a noob's contribution:

So instead of one alliance sending resources they can gather from others, they sim with their pacted (doesn't even require an ingame pact if Inno closes that loophole) alliance(s) and do the training and sacrificing against each other? With this being so easy to abuse/manipulate I fail to see how this is going to encourage enough fighting among different power blocks.

If you want to change the resources required to build one, I've got a good suggestion. Cities. You lose the city slot and the city. Bingo - less defense Alliance wide. Cities should be fully built in order to be considered. You have to contribute both resources - in the form of buildings; and either more resources or battle points (the ratio up to your own choosing) or gold to get the culture points for city slots. You'll have to actually hold the cities to build completion - and then the wonder while it's building with less cities. Put a big enough requirement of cities per level, and it would be a real test of skill to complete.

 

[DeletedUser31480]

If you don't mind a noob's contribution:
So instead of one alliance sending resources they can gather from others, they sim with their pacted (doesn't even require an ingame pact if Inno closes that loophole) alliance(s) and do the training and sacrificing against each other? With this being so easy to abuse/manipulate I fail to see how this is going to encourage enough fighting among different power blocks.

I did think about this sadly it is how the game is today where the pacted/academy alliances send resources, and at the minute I dont see any other way of ensuring this doesnt happen.

If you want to change the resources required to build one, I've got a good suggestion. Cities. You lose the city slot and the city. Bingo - less defense Alliance wide. Cities should be fully built in order to be considered. You have to contribute both resources - in the form of buildings; and either more resources or battle points (the ratio up to your own choosing) or gold to get the culture points for city slots. You'll have to actually hold the cities to build completion - and then the wonder while it's building with less cities. Put a big enough requirement of cities per level, and it would be a real test of skill to complete.

The only down side I see is gold spam.... Yes I know Gold spam indirectly now affects gameplay, wont this be a direct impact on WW with use of Gold and colonise other than conquest ?

 

[DeletedUser]

No more so than it already is. You can use Gold for culture points, instead of bp or resources. That is already in the game. Most players will use a combination of the various types. And I don't think Colonizaiton would be favored. To donate the city towards the World Wonder, it would have to be fully built. ie. all buildings at maximum level. While that could be achieved by gold alone - summoning the Phoenician Merchant constantly for the resource exchange and etc. the sheer amount of gold it would take would be staggering for a single city. If the requirement for the first level of the World Wonder is 100 cities I don't think too many Alliances are going to be able to pump that much money in the game.

Once the city is gone, and the city's anchor point is available again, yes gold spam could be an issue - for the colonization culture points. Then you have a long way to go to build a city up again. But this would not be an issue in any greater amount than it is now.

Downsides to having a city to maximum level to donate;

Carebear cities are harder to defend, and have less offense then a well designed city. This falls in line with making skill in combat more important. Much easier to fight with dedicated cities. Creating gaps in a well designed offensive/defensive scheme for your enemies to exploit.

Point total - going to be a huge red flag to any other player when your city starts getting close to the maximum point level.

Those annoying earthquake and lightning bolt attacks. Having to keep City Protection on the city while it's being donated (thinking something along the lines of a victory procession). Skill and dedication required. If the city drops in points or is conquered by the time the timer hits 0, it doesn't get donated.

 

[DeletedUser]

the last polls that were up weren't the ones i usually do, so i have decided to give all the ideas that didnt pass another shot at a poll


i have changed it to pending however a date for a poll has yet to be decided

 

[DeletedUser]

This idea is now up for voting, and [h=3]will close on 14.11.12 at 23:03[/h]

 

[DeletedUser]

the poll is now closed. this idea has passed and will be sent to the devs .