No matter what, the race for "Victor of the world" will almost always be a solo run. This is typically won by biggest, best organised in the way of resource and favor transfer anyway. But the real battle is for "Master of the world". This is where worlds can get interesting to say the least. And duck, we will always have simmers. Its just a part of the game we all deal with. Some of those simmers turn out to be very good players later on, some never learn, but they still have a right to play, just not always with me...
At least they help keep the numbers up to help finish off the final win.
So, when it comes down to the final battles for the crown, that is what everyone hangs on for. I think there should be a place in the world history for the crown winners as well.. After all, its the toughest battle to win.
And as far as your comment above duck:
"Rather just do away with crowns all together. Most if not all experienced players recognize it an award treasured by simmers rather then true fighters. If you do keep it then get rid of the sharing as it devalues the award. There is a reason that Grep has alliance caps. Coalitions and crown sharing is solely a mechanism for usurping the alliance cap. If people want to have the safety of numbers then just open a world with no alliance cap (as long as you keep the worlds with lower caps for us fighters)."
1: These worlds would be pretty boring just watching the giant coalitions (groups of good players) go from server to server winning victor. Giving others hope of a second win, with coalitions or not needs to stay a part of the game. I still think the "Master of the World" win is the best win. And its the only win you can take with you to other worlds.
2: As far as the sharing, and the devalue of the win: Not sure how you see the devalue.. If you have a team of players, in multiple alliances, that have all sacrificed and played hard to win, how does this devalue the award? In these big worlds, no single alliance has any chance alone of taking a WW unless its taken from an inactive or a traitor gives it away. This would be a stalemate in every world if we could not form coalitions and share the last win with all who helped. You portray a pretty boring game world duck with your recommendations... Or is this just a narrow one sided view of someone who just lost WW's from an organised coalition? I would hope not.
3: As far as the alliance caps, they need to be in place more specifically for the "Victor of the World" win. If this was not in place, the worlds would be dominated by these organised groups jumping from server to server just to win the Victor and get their name in grepo history... Once again, another boring game world portrayal.
Nothing personal duck, you are a great player and you do have my respect for that..
One thing I dont like though, is in every world, as long as the number stays above 300, any alliance can re-build the WW's and get a crown even if they did not get the initial win of Master of the World. If Inno would limit this to one win, but enable all those who are pact to get it, it would eliminate this issue without taking away the hope of a win from smaller alliances with good players helping in a coalition. I have heard of a world that took advantage of this and I was told everyone in that world got a crown, even those who did nothing to win it. Now I agree that this should never happen again.
So, I believe we need to keep the alliance cap and keep the "Victor of the World" the same as is. But we should limit the "Master of the World" (crown) to one win but allow it to be shared among all of the Alliances who are pact with one another who were a part of the win, and also make a place for this in grepolis history.
