Wish List World Wonder Tune Up

  • Thread starter DeletedUser41523
  • Start date

DeletedUser41523

Guest
Proposal/Details/Balance:
The recent tune up of world wonder rules should be an excellent addition to the game. So much so that its disappointing that it wasn't thought of sooner. But I think it could be improved upon more. Right now, the victory conditions are a first past the post system set a 4 world wonders to win. Whoever hits 4 first will win regardless and after that the world usually dies fast, usually crowning is a matter of who has the most warm bodies in their alliance at the end of the world and I feel this could still be the case. My proposal for fixing this is to adjust the first past the post entirely by implementing the following adjustments to the current updates.

1) A world can no longer be won by simply building 4 wonders first. Instead two paths to victory should be implemented. The first being that the first alliance who builds all 7 wonders will win and crown. The second path being that if nobody builds all seven, then world will continue until the closing conditions (less than 300 players) are met. At the end of the world closing the team with the most wonders be it 6 wonders or just 2 wonders, will win but will not crown.

2) Tie breakers. Lets say three alliances tie at 2 wonders a piece and the closing conditions have been met with the closing counter at 0. The winning alliance will be determined by who has the best conquest ratio on the three tied alliances.

Alliance A's combined score on Alliance B and Alliance C's is the determining factor in this case. Not its overall score or city count. If Alliance A have a higher sum of conquests on the tied alliances than the tied alliance's total sum, then Alliance A is the winner. Because combined, they took more cities off the other teams.

If for some reason teams end up tied on the conquest counter then the winner is the team with the highest combined points and total BP.

3) Only one alliance can crown. This will prevent long term crown sharing. However the world can still continue until the closing conditions are met.



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


Reason:
I believe that this will continue to increase the fighting in the WW era rather than making it a sim fest for a few months. You still have to gain ground on your enemies to win and in this case, gaining ground can contribute to an overall victory.

Abuse Prevention:
I don't think is does. But i'm open to ideas of holes here and how to fix them.

Summary:
Bottom line WW could still use some improvement to make it an actual contest and a better end game experience. Not that the current way is terrible. Just that this might make it even better. I also feel that making it a blood bath will make money for Inno instead of having as many people fizzle out.
 

DeletedUser44167

Guest
I like
1)
3)

2) I dunno
Maybe both Alliances get a Silver Crown instead of a Gold Crown it tied

Distance
WW should have a minimum distance they can be built close to one another

Building
Needs be a new way of building these things
Just shipping resources /accelerating then repeat is not fun
 

DeletedUser41523

Guest
2 is important in ensuring the world has a decisive victor and meets the closing requirement.

The distance isn't a bad idea, but ideally my idea is just a touch up that improves WW in the least amount of effort possible. IE something Inno would actually do since it doesn't require changing many mechanics in the game. In another sense distance could make the end game more interesting if more alliances can't clinch the win in the race.

I think the building is fine, its just that the way inno designed it originally left it open to easy abuse. Its supposed to be a war for the wonders. Which they have finally fixed up some.
 

DeletedUser41523

Guest
Definetely agree with 3

Hey thank you! I think crowns should go to one alliance per server since its supposed to be an achievement. Out of curiosity is there any particular reason 1 or 2 wouldn't be agreeable?
 

DeletedUser44167

Guest
"I think the building is fine, its just that the way inno designed it originally left it open to easy abuse. Its supposed to be a war for the wonders. Which they have finally fixed up some."
----------------------------------------------------------------

Was thinking more of some Alliance Task to be completed
- certain number of citys conquered
- overall point increase
- BP

or all of the above to be able to proceed to next upgrade

- send resourses
- accelerate
- accomplish task
 

DeletedUser31385

Guest
Moved to the wish list since end game ideas are on the do not suggest list.
 

DeletedUser41523

Guest
Moved to the wish list since end game ideas are on the do not suggest list.

What's the difference between the wish list and normal list?

@Ajax- sorry can't multi quote right now. The accomplish task part might work though I do want to try to keep it simple. I always thought that the WW perks and WW release time could be revamped too. Maybe if that's done add a count down timer if someone builds 7. Make it months if they get seven off the bat but base it one world existence time and overall alliance points.


Overall the WW concept is a little dated. Like the 50 alliances part. When that idea was introduced there were actually 50 alliances that could contribute at least 100k to the point total.
 

DeletedUser31385

Guest
What's the difference between the wish list and normal list?

@Ajax- sorry can't multi quote right now. The accomplish task part might work though I do want to try to keep it simple. I always thought that the WW perks and WW release time could be revamped too. Maybe if that's done add a count down timer if someone builds 7. Make it months if they get seven off the bat but base it one world existence time and overall alliance points.


Overall the WW concept is a little dated. Like the 50 alliances part. When that idea was introduced there were actually 50 alliances that could contribute at least 100k to the point total.
The difference is that ideas on the wish list can't be voted on. You can still discuss the idea though.
 

DeletedUser41523

Guest
But isnt inno scrambling to improve the end game? Wouldn't keeping End game ideas open help them out?
 

DeletedUser31385

Guest
But isnt inno scrambling to improve the end game? Wouldn't keeping End game ideas open help them out?
The problem was that too many of them were being suggested and sent up. End game ideas were put on the DNS list ages ago for that reason.
 

DeletedUser41523

Guest
So lets say this gets a ton of support like 250+ different players coming and posting/liking on this supporting it. Would Inno then consider moving it to voting and/or development?

Just feel like this is a simple fix that will leave a lot more people happier than they were while Inno shoots around ideas for a better end game.
 

DeletedUser31385

Guest
I honestly don't know. I have no control over what goes on the DNS list.
 

DeletedUser31385

Guest
Who would have that kind of authority? Baudin/Richard?
I don't know who makes the decision. I am not going to discuss this matter any further. As I suggested earlier, there is a chance of your suggestion being read by the developers if you post on the developer blog.
 
Top