World Wonders - A Discussion

[DeletedUser11165]

I am putting this here as despite some people's beliefs more players do actually read these forums than perhaps comment but my hope is to get a proper discussion that perhaps will get sent to the developers as player input.

Ill preface by saying I have been in Grepolis since 2010; Delta > Zeta > Athens > Oropos. I have also played on a Dutch server as it was Dutch friends who got me into the game. Fought Wonders twice on this account three times in total so I have been around. I will try not to ramble and put my idea's down in a coherent manner.

So wonders; my belief is the current concept is perfectly viable but wonders currently have become something most worlds simply try to "get over and done with" as opposed to what in my opinion they should be which is fought for and our virtual men and beasts should be bleeding for.

To start I believe current wonder bonus's are paltry when compared to say premium bonus and a better way would be an increasing bonus combined with a holding period to win.

So to use the Hanging Gardens of Babylon as my 1st example;

Alliance "X" builds the gardens and gains 3% increased resources, now I believe this should be changed to 3% per month up to a maximum of 30% if you hold it for 10 months which is the same as the merchant advisor.

Now to make fighting for wonders worth it there would be two options;
1) attackers gain a stacking attack buff the longer a wonder is held call it "fervour of the gods"
2) defending cities gain a negative buff against them the longer the wonder is held.
Personally I would say a negative against the city the longer it is held would be better as there is enough attack bonus's currently. So lets say 5% per month held call it too much drink and partying for your troops would be a solid effect. Yes holding a wonder for 10 months would probably be extremely rare but it also gives the option on some crazy worlds for just that a maximum of 30% increased resources against a negative against your troops of -50% which against a massively stacked city would hurt!.

So yes this would mean changes to other wonders which Ill offer examples below of possibilities.

Gardens: 3% increased resources per month to a maximum of 30%

Zeus: 3% Zeus favour per month to a maximum of 30%

Artemis: 3% increased favour production per month to a maximum of 30%

Pyramids: 500 Increased warehouse space per month to a maximum of 5000.
- This I consider a rough estimate and open for debate but I use a flat amount instead of a % as it would be a simple programming change as opposed to a % increase in the warehouse. The issue is starting with 300 is very small compared with the current 1500 which is a good bonus.

The Collosus: 5% reduced BP cost of victory processions to a maximum of 50% (at maximum a VP would require 150 points instead of 300)
- Again open for debate but reducing VP time is of little importance really in game bar allowing a little faster turn around time for opening a city slot either way its hardly a great bonus compared to reducing the cost.

The Tomb: 3% less cost in resources & favour for building mythical units increasing to a maximum of 30%
- Again open for debate but we all want to see more myths in game as does Inno from the rebalance.

The Lighthouse: Current bonus is barely of use; Either 2% increase in ship speed stacking to 20% or 2% reduction in ship costs stacking to 20%. Personally I would vote for reduction in ship costs. Also note I have not said increase naval attack power because there are enough buffs and combined with captain this would make a premium vs non premium hugely imbalanced.

Now I personally believe there should only be 1 award for winning a world whether it is for building all 7 or for just holding 4 for 3 months is open to debate with the right holding period holding 4 could well be a fair victory and still award the crown for seven thus keeping the 2 awards if that was the consensus.

So why did I choose 3 months for a holding period why not 1 month or 6; well I believe 6 if far too long but 3 months / 90 days gives even on a speed 1 world enough time to rebuild for at least 2-3 major operations against enemy wonders which is a fair fight.

I also believe one other change should be implemented; currently small fighting alliances are handicapped not so much by resources but by favour. Smaller aggressive alliances tend to be highly active meaning they can push large amounts of resources when they need to what limits them against larger alliances is favour production. To that end my opinion is if the largest alliance is 200 players and they get the 500 second reduction for 400 favour then an alliance of 50 should be perhaps get 1000 - 1250 seconds; giving smaller alliances a chance to build 1-2 wonders on top of breaking 1-2 wonders meaning an enemy has to fight for their victory and not simply turtle up and bot away perhaps meaning alliances don't see merging as their only hope.

Wonders I believe should be about alliances slugging it out these changes would mean some worlds would end up having huge wars with victory perhaps swinging from one alliance to another making wonders an exciting and even dangerous time for an alliance not a chore to be gotten over with. I have also tried to take into account the fact that all of this would require programming changes to which we have seen developer time is limited most of these changes would be pretty simple.

Dj

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m6erUBMtV2g

 

[DeletedUser33530]

Two quick things. One we aren't allowed to use the word that comes after the "ro" in robot. Two Oropos was actually a pretty unique wonders experience in terms of mass merging (at least in recent worlds histories, idk about anything beyond the third gen worlds) and the outcome of it was actually pretty predictable. So don't let Oropos influence your proposal too much here since I don't expect something like that to play out again anytime soon. Other then those bits this is a great proposal especial since inno has promised us a wonders revamp *cough*. I could nit pick a bit more but as I have a personal grudge against you wouldn't be able to tell what I'm judging the idea or the creator.

 

[DeletedUser11165]

Actually cheater I have spoken to a number of members of your own alliance and I post this in the vain hope of changes for the better. In total this is from talking to in excess of 150 long term players all of whom could be considered extremely knowledgeable fighters and players some of whom actually prefer the sim city style of play given as this would allow some alliances to still do just that.

As for Oropos it influenced me somewhat but no more than Athens or Delta did and from talking to friends on other worlds; in fact on Oropos we had won before you guys even knew it which again these changes would not greatly effect the use of subterfuge but it would of given you guys more time to react and possibly break ours.

"note" the comment you made on the +rep you gave me shows your not overly influenced by any grudge. Appreciated

 

[DeletedUser23176]

If any changes are made that encourage massive attacks, (which I am very in favor of - it really did make Athens a lot of fun.) then Inno needs to address the server lag issues associated with very large activities (attacks, support, etc) directed at a single city. That issue is clearly still there.

I am entirely in favor of anything that makes the WW phase less turtle-like in it's nature. Better bonuses over time definitely would help.

 

[DeletedUser42486]

still one of the better ideas for a wonder revamp, and fairly easy to change.

thread deserves a bump

 

[DeletedUser27128]

Definitely worth consideration, not bad. +rep for the effort!

 

[DeletedUser5819]

This is the first time I have read this, because frankly WW discussions make me yawn, so I am only here because Bond necroed it.

This game was waaaay better without an endgame.

However....the main part of this suggestion is brilliant. Holding the wonders is far harder than building them, and gives other alliances something to keep going for. It extends the life of world, though there will always be humbugs who will claim getting there first is the only thing that matters, just as there will always be humbugs that will say they will always quit before WWs on the basis of some imaginary moral stance. I digress..

I love the ramping of rewards for length of time held, and also the sliding scale for defending them.

The small alliance thing though, no. if your alliance isn't big enough to win then choose between winning and your little clique. No pain no gain. If small alliances are your thing then choose a low capped world.

All together though a proposal worth taking note of.

 

[DeletedUser11165]

My point has always been the development side of the game currently seems fully focused on more ideas around gold usage and any change to wonders would require large programming effort alot of this would not actually require massive programming changes.

As for the small alliance comment from sirloin I did not say smaller teams are handicapped by resources as they are not only that favour reduction works against them I still feel that's a fair balance change and come on all this merging and use of Russian bot to get wonders over lets actually do what was intended and fight for them.

 

[DeletedUser5819]

hmm... kinda reconsidering that +rep I just gave you Djrlol...

I kinda know what you said and didn't say because, guess what? I read it just before commenting on it!
Amazing eh?

So yeah, I know you didn't say what you didn't say, and did say what you did say, and I didn't say that you said what you didn't say, nor did I say you didn't say what you did say. :/

I don't use a bot. That would be cheating. I don't cheat.
Cheats will cheat one way or another. Your suggestion of favor buffs for small alliances would not remove that fact.

I am not clear how "no pain no gain" means cheating is ok, or cheating is painful. In fact your apparent attempt to rebuff my disagreement seems to be a repetition of what I disagreed with followed by a whinge about cheating. Do you somehow think that small alliances have no cheats and big ones are full of cheats? I don't see a logical point here. In fact it seems very like the usual end of world chant "my team lost therefore the winners must be cheats and my grapes are sour".

I will say that idk your previous worlds and politics, but if you want to play with your small number of mates rather than put up with a bigger group of teammates you don't necessarily get along with, or who have a different style, or won't let you lead Or Whatever, then you take that at the price of having fewer teammates in a team game. Its common sense, and it is also fair. If more people can get more favor then that would seem right. If they can't then that would be wrong. What you are proposing does not make intuitive sense, and frankly seems now to be badly motivated.

 

[DeletedUser2595]

Sirloin - You may want to check the worlds Dj has played on and the alliance sizes as well as where they ended up.

As for the idea, I think it's probably the best thought out WW proposal that is currently out there.

 

[DeletedUser5819]

I most certainly don't want to check any such thing, nor should I have to. If those are relevant and you know them then please go ahead and share, but don't send me nor anyone else on a wild goose chase for it.

 

[DeletedUser2595]

He played in small alliances that won worlds against much larger alliances. So his idea is not motivated by sour grapes that he lost to larger alliances because he was in a small alliance as you suggested.

Just saying that his idea is written from the perspective of playing in a small alliance that has won WW's rather than just complaining about large alliances and 'cheating'.

What he said about cheating was to give people the reason to fight over the WW's rather than just sim to them and the potential for cheating that this opens up.

 

[DeletedUser11165]

hmm... kinda reconsidering that +rep I just gave you Djrlol...

I kinda know what you said and didn't say because, guess what? I read it just before commenting on it!
Amazing eh?

So yeah, I know you didn't say what you didn't say, and did say what you did say, and I didn't say that you said what you didn't say, nor did I say you didn't say what you did say. :/

I don't use a bot. That would be cheating. I don't cheat.
Cheats will cheat one way or another. Your suggestion of favor buffs for small alliances would not remove that fact.

I am not clear how "no pain no gain" means cheating is ok, or cheating is painful. In fact your apparent attempt to rebuff my disagreement seems to be a repetition of what I disagreed with followed by a whinge about cheating. Do you somehow think that small alliances have no cheats and big ones are full of cheats? I don't see a logical point here. In fact it seems very like the usual end of world chant "my team lost therefore the winners must be cheats and my grapes are sour".

I will say that idk your previous worlds and politics, but if you want to play with your small number of mates rather than put up with a bigger group of teammates you don't necessarily get along with, or who have a different style, or won't let you lead Or Whatever, then you take that at the price of having fewer teammates in a team game. Its common sense, and it is also fair. If more people can get more favor then that would seem right. If they can't then that would be wrong. What you are proposing does not make intuitive sense, and frankly seems now to be badly motivated.

When I first read this I thought you were just being a troll on second reflection perhaps your just a moron. I am lucky enough to play with an immense set of players so I don't actually care but from a purely fair play standpoint I feel my comment is justified wonders were meant to be about fighting and encouraging small teams is to good of the game; by actually giving them a a chance only a chance given I did not advocate in any way shape or form reducing the resource costs.

As for your other comments about alliances yes merging over and over to hit an alliance cap is for the good of the game....not. There are cheats in small and large alliances I have also seen totally innocent people banned but it happens but anyone who claims their is not an issue with that damn russian bot spamming resources is either using it or is clueless. By the way Sirloin we still won despite the enemy advocating its usage so my motivation is actually for the good of the game your motivation is probably the same as those who like to hide in numbers. Ill try not to comment on this thread again given when I try to post constructive comments for the good of the game I am attacked as selfish.

 

[DeletedUser33530]

When I first read this I though you were just being a troll on second reflection perhaps your just a moron. I am lucky enough to play with an immense set of players so I don't actually care but from a purely fair play standpoint I feel my comment is justified wonders were meant to be about fighting and encouraging small teams is to good of the game; by actually giving them a a chance only a chance given I did not advocate in any way shape or form reducing the resource costs.

As for your other comments about alliances yes merging over and over to hit an alliance if for the good of the game....not. There are cheats in small and large alliances I have also seen totally innocent people banned but it happens but anyone who claims their is not an issue with that damn russian bot spamming resources is either using it or is clueless. By the way Sirloin we still won despite the enemy advocating its usage so my motivation is actually for the good of the game your motivation is probably the same as those who like to hide in numbers. Ill try not to comment on this thread again given when I try to post constructive comments for the good of the game I am attacked as selfish.

That's a pretty bold claim to make. Care to supply some evidence to support it?

 

[DeletedUser11165]

Cheater to be frank I made a generalization there as it was relentless skype advocating its use and not you guys in I forget the name before the merge so I owe you an apology but privatly I do still have the logs of it being advocated and how to use it.

 

[DeletedUser33530]

Cheater to be frank I made a generalization there as it was relentless skype advocating its use and not you guys in I forget the name before the merge so I owe you an apology but privatly I do still have the logs of it being advocated and how to use it.

I gave up trying to remember the names of my alliance after the third damn merge we did lol. And thanks.

Also again, I really do like this idea. It would be a step in the right direction in turning Wonders into a war based ending for a world instead of a sim fest. More importantly though, I think inno might actually consider doing this lol. Some of the other wonder revamp ideas are cool but it's unrealistic to think inno would do them. This is completely realistic for inno to do.

 

[DeletedUser]

Honestly, I too get bored when I hear another player trying to make a WW revamp like its going to make any difference. I only read half of it since the rest doesn't sound too interesting and I'm against the idea. If anything, the WWs are being finished more and more quickly. 10 months would be a Speed 1/2 world.

 

[DeletedUser11165]

That is partly the point Lemur to use Sirloins quote it would extend the end game and quite frankly too many players do not get involved in actual massive wonder sieges where an alliance earns millions of BP in one siege, because its seen as chore to get over by alot of players currently; even player who sleep on the sofa, or set an alarm will actually log on and send their support as soon as they can because they feel valued and get to see what can / is an amazing part of the game.

I understand that everything requires programming time and there is a finite amount of that resource and as I and cheater have said alot of this would not require great programming and changes.